' SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.---Appellant Jamia Masijid Habibia has impugned the order dated 31-1-2012, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby Civil Miscellaneous Application No.6145 of 2010 filed by respondent No.3 in Suit No.413 of 2010 was allowed and plaint was rejected.
2. Relevant facts spelt out from the instant appeal are that the appellant Jamia Masjid Habibia is a House of Almighty Allah and has a juristic identity and status having all legal rights to protect itself.
A plot measuring 9100 square yards was allotted to Messrs. Liaquat Town Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Karachi, by Karachi Development Authority, out of which a piece of land bearing Plot No.ST-4, measuring 4500 square yards was allotted to the appellant by virtue of allotment order No.132 dated: 9-4-1960, Shanti Nagar, Dhoraji Colony, KDA Scheme No.7, Karachi for the construction of Masjid thereon, whereas, the remaining portion of the plot bearing No. ST-4/1, measuring 4600 square yards was allotted to respondent No.3, Zulekha Bai V.M. Gany Rangoon- wala Trust for school namely V.M. Public School. Messrs Liaquat Town Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Karachi, was converted/renamed as Dhoraji Co-operative Housing Society, Karachi (The respondent No.1), who had acquired the possession of the said property for the construction of the appellant. Masjid. The respondent No.1 established the respondent No.2 i.e. Dhoraji Housing and Relief Trust, which was duly registered. The respondent No.1 handed over the possession of said land to the respondent No. 2 for construction of the Masjid. The respondent No. 2 got approved the building plan from the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 vide letter dated: 14-4-1979, and constructed the Masjid on the said plot with the donation of mohallah people as well as of the general public in the year 1980-81, and the area of said 4500 Square yards remained in possession of the appellant since very beginning. The respondent No.1 wrote several letters to respondent No.5 for demarcation of the above said plot, jointly allotted to appellant Masjid and the respondent No. 3 School. By virtue of letters dated 22-1-1969 and 1-9-1969, the said plot was demarcated and a piece of land measuring 4354.24 square yards was allotted to the Masjid, whereas, the remaining piece of land measuring 4745.76 square yards was allotted to respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 moved an application dated 9-9-1969 to respondent No. 5 for allotment of additional land, measuring 1316 squares for school, which was allowed and by virtue of letters dated 5-2-1970 and 17-2-1971 respectively, the Land and Estate Department of KDA allotted the additional land, measuring 1316 square yards to the respondent No.3, for school from Plot No.ST-4/I out of Mosque site, as such, total piece of land of school became 5762.42 square yards. The appellant is aggrieved by the alleged reduction of the land actually allotted to it measuring 4500 square yards to 4354.24 of 3337.58 square yards. It is also stated that the appellant being aggrieved by the allotment of additional land measuring 1316 square yards for the school site to the respondent No.3 by reducing/deducting the land already allotted for Masjid site, and filed Suit No.413 of 2010 before this Court, with the following prayers:--
(A) Declaration that the plaintiff Masjid (Masjid Habibia) is in legal and lawful possession of Plot No.ST-4, Shanti Nagar, Dhoraji Colony, KDA Scheme No.7, Karachi measuring 4500.00 square yards with all its entitlements, rights, claims and privileges without any interference or indulgence of any person whosoever.
(B) ' Declaration that the original allotment Order No.132, dated 9-4-1960, Plot No.ST-4, Masjid Habibia, Shanti Nagar, Dhoraji Colony, KDA Scheme No.7, Kara i, measuring 4500.00 square yards issued by the predecessor of the defendant No.1, namely Liaquat Town Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Karachi, is still in existence, valid, legal, lawful and substantial title document and further declaration that all the subsequent alterations, amendments, reductions and changes made by the defendants Nos.1 to 5 are illegal, unlawful, invalid, mala fide, without jurisdiction, null and void having no legal effects in the eyes of law and the same be cancelled.
(C) Permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them, their servants, executants, agents, administrators, subordinates, assignees and any other person(s) acting on their behalf from alienating, charging, transferring, altering, changing, deducting and modifying the actual area of 4500.00 square yards of ST-4, Shanti Nagar, Dhoraji Colony, KDA Scheme No.7, Karachi, possessed by the plaintiff, and dispossessing and removing the plaintiff from any portion thereof in any manner whatsoever, except in due course of law.
4. Respondent No.3 filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No.6145 of 2010 in Suit No.413 of 2010. After hearing both the parties, learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said CMA and rejected the plaint vide impugned order dated: 31-1-2012, hence the appellant filed the instant appeal with the prayer that the said impugned order may be set aside, with directions to the learned Single Judge of this Court to decide the subject Civil Suit on merits.
5. Chaudhry Abdul Rasheed, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant being a mosque is a juristic person having legal character to agitate all the legal rights conferred upon it over the suit plot which was duly allotted for the purpose of the construction of the mosque.
He further contended that in earlier Civil Suit filed by the respondents, the right of possession of the appellant over the suit plot was not specifically declared, therefore, at present the appellant has approached the Court to seek the declaration of its legal rights over the suit plot by filing fresh Civil Suit, as the appellant had not filed any such suit for determination of instant relief, therefore, the Civil Suit filed by the appellant is not barred by the section 11 of C.P.C. On the strength of earlier verdict of the Civil Court passed in the Civil Suit of the respondents. He lastly argued that the impugned order may be set aside as the learned Single Judge of this Court has not appreciated, scrutinized and analyzed the documentary evidence produced by the appellant along with its plaints, however, he has admitted the previous round of litigations.
6. Syed Amir Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contended that the appellant, with ulterior motives has come forward to defeat the legal and just verdict of the learned Single Judge of this Court. Learned counsel further argued that the respondent No.3 being aggrieved by the illegal and unauthorized act of occupation of the portion of the plot by the appellant, filed Suit No.1409 of 1999 before this Court, which was subsequently transferred to the Civil Court and renumbered as Civil Suit No.1115 of 2002, and was decreed and also attained finality, as such, the Suit No.413 of 2010, filed by the appellant, was hit by the principle of res judicata. He lastly argued that the issues involved in the instant appeal have already been fully discussed and decided by the competent Courts, therefore, the instant appeal liable to be dismissed.
7. Mr. Daniel Baldish, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has adopted the arguments advanced by Chaudhry Abdul Rashed, learned counsel for the appellant.
8. We have carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the whole record of the case with their assistance. The record reveals that the subject matter is of long outstanding and there were several rounds of litigation between the parties.
9. For the appropriate decision of controversy, the provisions of section 11, C.P.C. Are reproduced as under:-- "11. Res Judicata:---No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court".
10. It is the prime demand of the Justice system that every cause should be fairly tried only once and finally be concluded forever between the agitating parties. The final determination of the controversy between the individuals under the constitution or the relevant statutes is one of the basic requirements for the stability of the society which directly affects the life of any individual. If there is no end of litigation regarding the determination of the legal rights of an individual, it would shatter the basic norms of judicial system which would ultimately affect the whole society, causing anarchy and lawlessness.To ensure the maintenance of good order in society it is the prime assignment of the Courts to minimize the hardships of public at large by adjudicating and concluding at the earliest the litigations brought before them, which otherwise would restore, reaffirm and reinstate the faith of the public at large upon the judicial system. While determining the basic issues of disputes under the principle of res judicata, the Courts must deal with such issues with an iron hand to curb the false litigation as well as to discology the court birds.
11. In the plethora of judgments, the honourable Supreme Court has observed that a previous decision of the Court is completely binding upon all the claimants who may raise their legal rights through any of the parties. The person who has allegedly been deprived of his rights from any of the party impleaded in the previous proceedings could neither seek his independent right over the property involved in the proceedings nor he can hunt for declaration of his entitlement to defeat the earlier verdict of the Court which otherwise had already attained finality.
12. In instant appeal it is also mentioned that to manage the affairs of the appellant mosque, one Muhammad Ashraf Godil established a trust under the name and style of Jamia Masjid Habibia Trust Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamat Braelvi Maslak Trust, however, thereafter serious disputes arose immediately between the Trustees and the respondent No.2, which ultimately resulted into litigations and the respondent No.2 filed Civil Suit No. 432/1997 against the Trust and its trustees which was decreed and same also attained finality. The respondent No.4 i.e. Maderssa Al-Habibia of Jamia Masjis Society also filed Civil Suit No.1108/2007, for declaration, cancellation, permanent/ perpetual injunction against the present remaining respondents, but its plaint was rejected under principle of res judicata under section 11, C.P.C. By the Court of learned VI Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East vide order dated 16-7-2009.
13. While considering the main question pertaining to applicability of res judicata upon the subject Civil Suit No. 413/2010, we have minutely examined all the Civil Suits filed by the parties with their respective prayer clauses, and it is crystal clear that the respondent No. 3 being aggrieved by the illegal and unauthorized act of occupation of the portion of the plot by the appellant, filed Suit No.1409/1999 before this Court, which was subsequently transferred to the Civil Courts and renumbered as Civil Suit No.1115 of 2002, with the following prayers:--
(a) For perpetual injunction permanently restrain the defendants or any person or persons inclusive of their agents, servants, associates, masters, contractors, employees, executants whomsoever claiming through or under them from interfering into the legal possession in respect of the Suit plot and/or claiming any part/portion of the plaintiffs Plot bearing No.ST/I, Scheme No.7, Dhoraji Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi, admeasuring 5672.42 square yards.
(b) Mandatory Injunction be granted against the defendants directing them to remove all the illegal construction inclusive of illegal partition wall and room, and restore the physical possession of the aforesaid portion of suit plot, alternately the Nazir of this Hon'ble Court be appointed to accomplish the removal of all the aforesaid illegal construction inclusive of partition wall and the recently constructed room and restore it to the original position before its illegal construction and to restore the possession of the aforesaid portion of the suit to the plaintiffs.
(c) To declare that the defendants Nos.8 to 12, and anybody claiming through or under them have got no right in the property of the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs are lawful and legal owners of the No.ST-4/1, admeasuring 5672.42 square yards.
(d) To cancel the trust Deed Annexure "M/2" dated 6th February 1997 and to declare that the same is null and void and that the defendants Nos.8 to 12, and/or anybody claiming through the said trust have got nothing to do with Masjid Habibia assets, and the defendant No.7 be directed to effect such cancellation entries in his record.
(e) To declare that the action of the defendant No.4 to attach southern portion of plot No.ST-4/1 is illegal, ultra vires, and without lawful authority.
(f) To declare that the defendants Nos.9 to 12, to pay the damages of Rs.10 lacs to the plaintiffs.
14. Accordingly, Civil Suit No.1115 of 2002, was decreed in favour of the respondent No.3, and five prayers from (a) to (e) were allowed. It is also pertinent to mention that annexure P-6 filed along with the memo of instant appeal, allotment order/letter dated 17-2-1971, where by additional land of 1316 Square Yards was allotted to the respondent No.3, and the area of appellant is mentioned as 3337.58 Square yards and land of the respondent No.3 is mentioned as 5762.42 Square yards, and said document was duly considered by the trial Civil Court and said allotment order was neither recalled, revoked or declared by the competent Court to be illegal. It is important to mention that in Civil Suit 432 of 1997, filed by the respondent No.2, the learned Court II Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East, vide order dated: 21-2-2003, had already cancelled the Jama-e-Masjid Habibia Trust and also restrained them from raising any construction of whatsoever in nature within the boundary wall and premises of Masjid and as well as to deal with the affairs of management of the Masjid.
15. Amazingly, now the appellant by twisting the facts and circumstances in its Civil Suit has sought the relief of the declaration for its possession to the extent of the said plot which has already been decided by the competent Civil Court and same verdict had also attained finality. Resultantly, the appellant could not be permitted in the specific prevalent circumstances to re-open the account of controversy over the Plot No.ST-4/1, admeasuring 5672.42 Square yards, which even otherwise is now a closed and past transaction, as the issues pertaining to the entitlement of possession of the respective parties have already been finally determined by the competent Court so there remains no room for the appellant to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for the subject relief.
16. Consequently, we have no hesitation to conclude that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is just, proper and within four corners of law, whereby the plaint of the appellant was rejected under section 11 C.P.C. Being barred by res judicata. The appellant has failed to point out any illegality and irregularity in the impugned order, therefore, same does not call for any interference, hence maintained accordingly.
17. For the forgoing reasons, instant High Court Appeal stands dismissed being non-maintainable under the law.
18. These are the reasons and findings for the dismissal of instant appeal through short order dated: 24-10-2013, passed by this court.