Back
A.P.SEN, N.L.UNTWALIA
Avtar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jagjit Singh – Respondent
What is the effect of res judicata on a civil court's lack of jurisdiction to try a dispute? What are the consequences when a party pursues the same matter in multiple forums after a jurisdictional ruling? What is the principle governing when a decision on jurisdiction becomes binding as res judicata in subsequent suits?
Key Points: - The appeal concerns whether a Civil Court’s lack of jurisdiction can operate as res judicata in subsequent actions (!) (!) . - The Court held that if a defendant appears and a jurisdictional issue is raised and decided, the decision on jurisdiction can operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, though the reasons may not be the same (!) . - The Court diverged from a prior Allahabad High Court view, emphasizing that non-appearance and automatic return of plaint may not bind as res judicata, whereas appearance and decision on jurisdiction can be binding (!) . - The Court dismissed the appeal and stated there is no way out for the appellants due to the technical ground of res judicata (!) . - The judgment cites and discusses the principle that a court declining jurisdiction does not bind the parties on the reasons for declining jurisdiction, but later clarifies when such issues can be binding in subsequent litigation (!) (!) . - The case references UNTWALIA and others v. Jagjit Singh and discusses the procedural history: initial Civil Court suit, Revenue Court petition, and subsequent suit, all involving jurisdictional challenges (!) (!) . - The judgment acknowledges that the appellants’ course of action was influenced by wrong advice and emphasizes the proper remedy would have been to pursue the jurisdictional point to finality in the correct forum (!) .
Judgment
UNTWALIA J.:- This appeal arises out of an unfortunate litigation where the plaintiff-appellant in this appeal has got to fail in this Court too on some technical grounds.
2. One Sardar Balwant Singh died on 10th March, 1955 leaving only three sons according to the case of appellants, namely, the two appellants and respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 claimed to be a fourth son of Balwant Singh entitled to 1/4th share in the property left by him. The appellants filed Suit No. 41 of 1958, in the Court of Sub-Judge, Bassi. The Civil Court on the objection of Respondent No. 1 framed a preliminary issue whether the said Court was competent to try the suit or was it a matter which could be decided only by the Settlement Commissioner. By order dated 7-7-1958 the Learned Subordinate Judge decided that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit and directed the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Revenue Court. When the appellants filed their claim in the Revenue Court their petition was returned holding that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to try it. Thereupon, the appellants instituted Suit No. 13 of 1960 in the Court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Bassi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
