' This petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arises out of a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the petitioners against the respondents, in which their plaint was rejected under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the trial Court on the ground that the controversy raised in the suit has already been adjudicated upon by this Court in Writ Petition No,1029/R/1965. The petitioners went in appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by an Additional District Judge on 5th August, 1992. He has now moved this Court by filing this petition in which revision of the two orders has been canvassed.
2. Mr. S.M. Almas Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners has firstly contended that the provisions of Order 7, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not attracted inasmuch as for the applicability of the said provision, only the averments made in the plaint and not the defence set up by the other party or any other material could be considered. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No, 1029/R/1965 has been misread.
3. I am afraid, none of the contentions of the learned counsel has anylA force. Although, it is correct that, generally speaking, for the purposes of Order VII, rule 11, the Court should take in view the averments made in the plaint alone and not the defence set up by the respondents, but this rule is not universal and admits of certain exceptions, one of which is that if it comes to the notice of the Court even from the documents filed by a defendant, that the A dispute has already been adjudicated upon by a superior Court and the filing of the suit is nothing but an abuse of process of law, the plaint must be rejected. See Nazeer Ahmad and others v. Ghulam Mehdi and others (1988 SCM R 824) and Maqbool Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCM R 2063).
4. In the present case, the claim of the petitioners in plaint was that they were owners of the property measuring 8 Kanals 9 Marlas situate in Mauza Shakargarh, although the petitioners were allotted/transferred a house built in area of which was described in the order of this Court dated 6th October, 1965, as about three Kanals. The learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that a statement has already been made by the respondents that the entitlement of the petitioners to the house in question is not disputed by them. Similar statement is made by the learned counsel today.
5. As regard the remaining property measuring about 6 Kanals 9 Marlas, the matter stood concluded by order passed in Writ Petition No, 1029/R/1965 on 6th October, 1965, wherein it was observed that:-- "The learned counsel for the petitioner contends in this petition that the entire area consisting of 8 Kanals and 9 Marlas is in fact a house or one building and, as such, the petitioner is entitled to the transfer of the property as a whole. I am afraid, I cannot interfere in this matter which has been examined thoroughly by the Settlement Authorities who have concurrently held that the area claimed by the petitioner in this petition is agricultural land which does not form part of the building occupied by the petitioner. There is no force in this petition, which is thus dismissed in limine."
6. In the last, the learned counsel contends that the petitioners have also claimed ownership on the basis of adverse possession. This plea is, however, not available to the petitioners, in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Maqbool Ahmad v. Covernment of Pakistan (1991 SCM R 2063), wherein it has been held that claim on account of adverse possession is contrary to the Injunctions of Islam as contained in Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, and section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908 shall cease to have any effect from 1st of July, 1986.
' There is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed in limine.