' Petitioners, through the instant civil revision have questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 09.1.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Swabi in Civil Appeal No, 34/CR/2012 preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge-IV, Swabi whereby suit of the petitioner has been dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
2. In essence, the petitioners and Respondents Nos. 5 to 26 instituted a suit for declaration Bearing No, 10/1 on 19.7.2006 against the Respondents No, 1 to 4 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Swabi, to the effect that they are owner in possession of the suit land measuring 69 kanals 13 marlas comprising Khasra No, 1496-421-4076- 4077-4087-4075-4466-4468-4465-5430-1006-1009-5438- 5429-5430-10- 1011 Khata Nos. 1188/2405 to 2399, 1194/2413/2266/2414, 1205/2441/ 1177 and 2441 to 2444, moza Koat District Swabi and the defendants were tenants-at-well to cultivate the same against the payment of produce to the petitioners; that later on the predecessor of Respondents No, 1 to 4 attested a Mutation No, 563 attested on 15.1.1933, which was challenged through filing the suit by the petitioners on the ground that the same being illegal was ineffective upon their rights.
3. The said suit was resisted by the respondents through filing written statement but during proceedings the plaintiffs/petitioners disappeared, thus the suit was dismissed in default for non appearance vide order dated 27.7.2011. An application dated 27.9.2011, filed by the petitioners for restoration of the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground of being time barred, vide order dated 21.11.2011 and appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the learned District Court. The petitioners started a fresh round of litigation by filing a fresh suit Bearing No, 241/1 on 19.12.2011 against the same set of respondents with the same prayer by disputing the same landed property, against which the respondents submitted an application under Order VII Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for rejection of plaint on the ground of being hit by the principles of res- judicata. After contest, the learned trial Court accepted the same vide the impugned order dated 22.2.2012 and dismissed the second suit being barred by the provisions contained in Order IX Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners went in appeal but their appeal also met the same fate and was dismissal by the learned District Judge, Swabi vide order dated 09.1.2014. Hence, this petition.
4. Valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard and record was scanned carefully.
5. Undoubted, the earlier suit Bearing No, 10/1 filed by the petitioners against the respondents for declaration and perpetual injunction was dismissed for non prosecution and application for its restoration was also dismissed being time barred. Moreso, appeal filed against the rejection of application for dismissal, also bore no fruit. In the eventuality the petitioner is precluded by the provisions of Order IX Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to bring a tresh suit. Whereas controversy competently been decided by the trial Court, then the subsequent suit arising all the questions previously agitated and decided would be barred under the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as well on the principle of respondent-judicata. For better understanding the barring provision of order IX Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is transcripted as below: "Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit. Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under Rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to cots or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceedings with the suit."
The bare reading of above quoted rule coupled with the story narrated by the plaintiffs in both the plaints, would absolutely make it manifest that the subsequent suit between the same parties, on the same cause of action, regarding the same subject matter, would not be maintainable particularly, when application for restoration of the previous suit and then appeal against the same has been dismissed by the proper forum. Law does not allow repetition of litigation, thus the legislature very wisely precluded the plaintiff from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action, when the suit is dismissed under Order IX Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The indolent attitude of the petitioners i,e, not pursuing the previous suit vigilantly has cultivated a vested right in favour of the respondents/defendants, which may not be lightly dislocated. The statute of Civil Procedure Code does not create hurdle in the way of litigants in technical manner. It is based on broad consideration to regulate and foster the cause of justice with a label that there should be an end to the litigation.
6. Both the Courts below have properly appreciated the relevant law on the subject, I have no reason to disagree with the well based and unexceptional concurrent conclusions of Courts below, thus this revision petition being bereft of merit is dismissed.