' By way of a suit filed on 8-2-1996 the petitioner called in question the validity of Notice No,273, dated 21-1-1996 issued by respondent No,3 for respondent No,1, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs,3,39,665/65 by 14-2-1996 failing which the same shal be recovered as arrears of land revenue, being an amount due from the petitioner as lease money for the year 1991-1992. It was stated that this amount was not at all due and the petitioner was not liable to pay the same. In the written statement, inter alia it was pleaded that the suit was barred by res judicata as on identical or substantially identical facts the petitioner earlier filed a suit which was dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. On 27-7-1993. Thereafter, another suit was filed for rendition of accounts which was also dismissed. An appeal taken to the District Court also failed on 7-3-1994. The suit for rendition of accounts was also dismissed on 27-3-1996. It was pleaded that the petitioner was avoiding to pay the amount by resorting to frivolous litigation. Alongwith the suit, the petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from recovering the suit amount, pending decision of the suit. This was also contested. Vide order dated 24-6-1996 the Trial Court allowed the injunction application. Respondents appealed which was allowed by Additional District Judge on 11-10-1997 and after setting aside the order dated 24-6-1996, Appellate Court dismissed the injunction application. The petitioner was burdened with special cost of Rs,5,000.
2. In this revision under section 115 of C.P.C. Directed against the appellate order, Mr. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on PLD 1962 (W.P.) Baghdad-ul-Jadid 8 Sardar Muhammad and another v. Chairman, Town Committee Sadiqabad and others, PLJ 1977 Quetta 631, Haji S. Habibullah and another v. Municipal Committee, Quetta and 1997 CLC 529 Shaukat Ali v. Province of Punjab and 6 others to contend that the lease money cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue. He has also argued that the demanded amount included disputed sums of salaries and group insurance and therefore, the same cannot be said to be "due" within the meaning of Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the Rules framed thereunder. In reply learned counsel for the respondents has supported the appellate order by urging that the present suit was hit by res judicata and was not maintainable. He has elaborated that the petitioner, on the same cause of action and involving similar facts filed the suit on 3-3-1992 in which the plaint was rejected on 27-7-1993. Another suit for declaration and injunction was also filed on 23-11-1992. This was again dismissed and against it an appeal by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 3- 8-1993. The third suit was filed by the petitioner on 5-6-1994. This was dismissed on 27-3-1996 for failure of the petitioner to produce the evidence. The petitioner's appeal against the same was dismissed on 4-9-1996. It was on 8-2-1996 that the petitioner filed the 4th suit. He has relied on PLD 1958 W.P Lahore 686 (Inayatullah v. Khan Begum and others) to contend that where the suit is dismissed after closure of evidence under Order, 17 Rule 3, C.P.C. Decree is on merits and the decree bars a second suit.
3. The filing of earlier suits and their dismissal has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has, however, contended that the present suit was filed against the fresh notice dated 21-1-1996 under section 81 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 andthis furnished the fresh cause of action to the petitioner. According to him, since recovery of the disputed amount by resorting to coercive process prescribed in Land Revenue Act was illegal, the petitioner can maintain the suit.
4. It is well-settled that in such circumstances it is the substance of the plaint, notwithstanding the language used, which has to be seen by the Court. The basic dispute between the parties is the liability of the petitioner to pay the demanded amount or any part of it. Directly or indirectly this question was involved in the earlier suits although some times the prayer couched in declaratory language and on another occasion, the suit was framed for rendition of accounts. The earlier dismissal, in my view will stand in the way of the second suit. As stated, one of the suits was dismissed on 27-3-1996 when the petitioner failed to produce evidence in support of his case. This -decree was upheld on appeal. In such circumstances the decree amounted to a decision on merits, PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lah. 686 Inayatullah v. Khan Begum and others so states and 1 respectfully follow the same. The decree having attained finality, bars the present suit. The claim that the issue of notice dated 21-1-1996 under section 81 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 furnishes a fresh and independent cause of action cannot be accepted, as the question involved is the liability of the petitioner to pay the disputed amount. The earlier decree dated 27-3-1996 settles the issue, once for all.
5. The judgment of the Appellate Court dated 11-10-1997 does not suffer from any irregularity or impropriety much less illegality. This revision has no force and is dismissed with costs.
Revision .