' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19-5-2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi, Dir (Lower) at Samar Bagh, whereby appeal filed by respondents was allowed and order dated 10.2-2011 passed by the learned trial Court was set aside.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that petitioners filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession of the suit property fully described in the heading of the plaint. The suit was contested by the respondents through filing written statement and they also filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. For rejection of plaint. The application was resisted by the petitioners and through order dated 10-2-2011; the application filed by the respondents was dismissed. Feeling dissatisfied, the respondents filed an appeal, which was allowed by the learned appellate Court through impugned order dated 19-5-2011. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that impugned order passed by the learned lower appellate Court was not in accordance with law, as it was yet to be determined that whether the suit property, parties, and the subject-matter was the same, as that alleged by the respondents in their application as well as in their written statement. It was further argued that local commissioner was appointed and he was given power to determine the fact that the suit property is the same as was the subject- matter of previous litigation and this was net warranted under the law. Lastly concluded with force that law favours adjudication of cases on merits and in cases where recording of evidence was required the same could not be curtailed at initial stage.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondents contended that specific plea with regard to possession in respect of property in dispute had raised in written statement as well as an application filed for rejection of plaint. It was further contended that object of provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Was that the Court must put to an end the litigation at the very initial stage when on account of some legal, impediments full-fledged trial was a futile exercise. In this regard, he placed reliance on the case of "Noor Din and another v. Additional District Judge, Lahore" (2014 SCM R 513).
5. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused with their able assistance.
6. A perusal of the record reveals that a decree was passed in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondents in the year 1965 with regard to suit property through judgment dated 23-8-1965.
Thereafter, with regard to same property another suit was filed against predecessor of respondents, which was dismissed through judgment dated 7-1-1992. Similarly, a criminal case was registered by respondent No, 1 through A FIR No, 997 dated 28-8-2009 under sections 427/149/150/34, P.P.C. And compromise took place due to intervention of elders of the area on 5-12- 2009 in the said case, wherein the rights of ownership and possession of the respondents were admitted. The petitioners were well within knowledge of all the decisions taken and compromise effected with regard suit property. They never challenged the judgment passed in favour of respondents so far.
7. It is well settled by now that for setting aside judgment and decree specific provision of Section 12(2) was inserted in Civil Procedure Code barring a fresh suit to challenge the same. The petitioners never ever challenged the judgment passed way-back in the year 1965 or judgment passed in the year 1991; rather they have brought a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with possession.
8. The rule of res judicata, was founded on ancient precedent on the basis of wisdom, which is for all time, in the interest of the public at large that finality would be attached to the decision pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Wisdom behind insertion of section 11, C.P.C. Was that it would be in the public interest that individual should not be vexed twice. The decision pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction in between the parties or their successors unless the same is reversed or annulled by adopting a procedure prescribed by statutes would remain in field for all times to come. The wording of section 11, C.P.C. Is very clear, which includes the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit had been directly and substantially in issue in between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, with the exception that Court trying the former suit had been a Court of competent jurisdiction to try subsequent suit. Thus, once it is proved that with regard to the suit property the matter was finally resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to invoke the provisions of Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. In order to put an end to the litigation at the very initial stage when on account of material available before the learned trial Court full-fledged trial was a futile exercise and there was no need for recording of evidence or enhance the agonies of parties in the shape of long civil litigation, which ultimately would end in dismissal of suit being barred by law.
9. In view of the above facts, the suit of the petitioners on the face of record was barred by law and there was no need for recording of evidence or full-fledged trial and the learned appellate court had rightly appreciated the matter while dealing with the appeal of the respondents and rightly rejected the plaint of the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C.
' In the circumstances discussed above, this petition along with E CM being devoid of merits is dismissed with no order as to costs.