Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vinay P. Tripathi, Adv. Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR Mr. Abhinav Jaganathan, Adv. Mr. B. Yeshwanth Raj, Adv. Mrs. Preeti Shukla, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. V. Mohana, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, AOR Ms. Praveen Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Pushpanjali Singh, Adv. Ms. Bhavya Pande, Adv.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• Maintainability of Fresh Suit: A fresh suit is maintainable after a dismissal under Order IX Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), as the remedies of filing a fresh suit and applying for restoration of the original suit are not mutually exclusive. (!) (!) (!)
• Res Judicata Applicability: The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to non-adjudicative dismissals, such as those under Order IX Rule 2 or Rule 3 of the C.P.C., because such dismissals do not constitute a formal adjudication of rights or a "decree" under Section 2(2) of the C.P.C. (!) (!) (!)
• Distinction Between Rule 4 and Rule 9: Unlike dismissals under Order IX Rule 8 (where a fresh suit is barred under Rule 9), dismissals under Order IX Rule 2 or Rule 3 do not preclude the plaintiff from filing a fresh suit under Order IX Rule 4, provided the law of limitation is satisfied. (!) (!) (!)
• Evidentiary Value of Wajib Dava: The evidentiary value of the document titled "Wajib Dava" was upheld by the Supreme Court, agreeing with the High Court's view that the document could not be ignored merely because it was not proved by examining attesting witnesses, especially since it was not disputed by the defendants. (!) (!)
• Judgment Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that there was no merit in the petitioner's submissions regarding the maintainability of the fresh suit or the applicability of res judicata. (!)