This revision application has been field challenging the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. Brief facts relevant for the purposes of this revision application are that the present applicant had instituted Suit No. 11 of 1993 wherein it was mainly prayed that after the death of their father Taj Muhammad Mst. Ruqiat one of the hers was not entitled to inherit any share on the ground that prior to death of Taj Muhammad she had executed a Qubooliat dated 28-6-1955 giving up her share in favour of her father after having received a sum of 119.2,000. The said suit was dismissed. In the said suit-.8 issues were framed which include issue No.5 which reads as under:-- "Whether the Qabooliat dated 28-5-1955 is false, fictitious, managed and void document?
Issue No.3 in the suit is:-- "Whether the suit is hit under section 11, C.P.C.."- It has been pointed out that earlier the same plaintiff against the same co-sharers had instituted a Suit NoA1 of 1986 wherein also identical relief was sought and in that suit issue of fact identical to the present issue No.5 was settled which was discussed on merit and it was held that the said Qabooliat was a fictitious, false, managed and void document. This finding in the earlier suit was challenged in Civil Appeal No-32 of 1989 which appeal was also dismissed and specific finding was given maintaining the findings on this issue. However, it was also observed that the plaintiff may approach the Revenue Authorities if he so chooses. The plaintiff after having approached the Revenue Authorities and finding no favour before them had come again and instituted the said Suit No. l l of 1993 which was dismissed on the ground of being hit by the provisions of section 11 of C.P.C..
This finding was challenged in Appeal No.46 of 1994 which was also dismissed hence this revision application.
I have heard Mr. Saeeduddin Siddiqui advocate learned counsel of the applicant. He has submitted that because the Revenue officers have been joined in the present suit, therefore, the provisions of section 11 of C.P.C. Would not apply. He has further submitted that in these circumstances the nature of the case has changed. He has placed reliance on the following cases:-
1. Mumtaz A.I Shah and 6 others v. Sultan and 2 others by Legal Heirs. (1994 SCMR 1725)
2. Muhammad Arshad and another v. Mst. Firdausia Begum and 4 others 1994 CLC 1967).
3. Mst. Ghulam Sughran v. Sahibzada Ijaz Hussain and others (PLD 1986 Lah. 194). '
"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 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."
It may be appreciated that the pertinent words used in the above section are "issue". In the present case as observed above a definite issue was framed with regard to validity and legality of the said Qabooliat of 1955 and a specific finding has been given by the Courts in the earlier suits. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to conclude that a final adjudication had been made on the particular issue which cannot be re-agitated under the provisions of section 11, C.P.C. As regards the case-law cited by the learned counsel it may be observed that in the first case of Mumtaz A.I the point involved was that the trial Court had not gone in the merits of the case and disposed of the suit on the point of res judicata alone. In the present case it may be observed that the identical issues were raised in the two suits and iii the first earlier suit the same had been decided against the present applicant which judgment was maintained in the appeal also. As regards the second case of Muhammad Arshad the point was that the principles of res judicata do apply amongst the co-defendants as well provided the issue of conflict of interest is finally decided amongst them with notice and knowledge. In the present case the co-heirs had the notice and knowledge of the earlier suit as they were party to the suit and the matter was contested. The third case of Mst.
Ghulam Sughran has no bearing in the present case as in that case the earlier suit had been withdrawn.