Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioner (March 31, 1914) affirming the decree of the District Judge of Quetta Pishin.

The suit was instituted by the respondent under the circumstances stated in the judgment of their Lordships.

Both Courts in India held that the issue raised by the appellant was res judicata under s. 10 of the British Baluchistan Regulation IX. of 1896, which is set out in the judgment.

1917. June 22, 25. Dunne, for the appellant. The merits of the issue of fraud were not entered into upon the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner. The matter, therefore, was not "finally decided" Sheosagar Singh v. Sitaram Singh (( 1897) L. R. 24 Ind. Ap. 50.); Gungabishen Bhugut v. Roghoomath Ojha (( 1881) I. L. R. 7 Calc. 381.); Chunder Coomar Mitter v. Sib Soondari Dasee. (( 1882) I. L. R. 8 Calc. 631) [Reference was also made to the Codes of Civil Procedure, 1882, s. 13, and 1908, s. 11.]

Dube, for the respondent. The matter " finally decided" in the previous suit was that the bond was binding until the deed was set aside. The same issue in substance is now raised and the appellants are estopped Soorjomonee Dayee v. Suddamund Mohapatter. (( 1873) L