The petitioners — the legal representatives of the deceased Kalu — challenged three concurrent decrees in favour of respondent No.1 (the LRs of the deceased Abdul Rasheed). Their argument was procedural: respondent No.1, they said, should have filed a suit for specific performance rather than invoking the remedy under Section 77 of the Registration Act. The Lahore High Court's Multan Bench had rejected the challenge on 07.10.2025 in C.R.793-D/2025; the petitioners came to the Supreme Court in C.P.L.A.2413-L/2025.
On 17.09.2026, the Supreme Court — Mr. Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan authoring, with Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar — dismissed the petition and refused leave. The short, decisive reason: the very controversy already stood settled by a Supreme Court order dated 26.03.1989. With that order on the record, the matter was barred by res judicata and no fresh cause of action had been made out.
Res judicata is litigation's full stop. Once the highest court has decided a controversy between the same parties on the same question, re-dressing the argument in new procedural clothes — 'he should have sued differently' — does not create a new case. Three concurrent findings below plus a binding 1989 Supreme Court order left nothing to argue.
The discipline this enforces is finality. Courts exist to end disputes, not to host rematches across generations — both original parties here were deceased, their LRs fighting on. Faisla jo Supreme Court ne 1989 me de diya, woh 2026 me dobara nahi khulega. Choose your remedy correctly the first time; the second time, the door is shut.