Dismissal of a suit for a technical or formal defect or for non-compliance with a condition precedent does not constitute a bar to a subsequent suit.

( 1 ) THE short point arising for consideration in these revision petitions is whether the doctrine of res judicata operates as a bar to the maintainability of these actions. The suits are instituted by the Srikakulam Municipality represented by its Special Officer and Secretary and are laid against the same defendant for recovery of property tax due in respect of several items of property for the ear 1962-63 and 1963-64. The main defence is that the suits are bared because of earlier decisions in respect of the identical claims. Formerly suits were brought by the Municipal Council against the defendant for recovery of arrears of tax levied by it on the very same item of property. The suits related to the three years 1961-61 to 1963-64. The plaintiff succeeded in the suits but the defendant preferred appeals form the decrees of the trial court. The appeals related only to the two later years. The decree in respect of the first year was not the subject-matter of the appeal in any of the cases.

( 2 ) THE appeals were allowed and the suits dismissed on the ground that the sanction of the Municipal Council was not obtained before their institution and consequently they were not maintainable. After the requisite sanction was got, the present batch of suits is laid. The District Munisf rejected the plea of the bar of res judicata and granted decrees in all the suits. But the learned District Judge held that the dismissal of the earlier suits is a decision which bars the present actions. In these revision petitions the view of the Lower Appellate Court is challenged. As the valuation in each of the suits is less than Rs. 1000. 00 the plaintiff is questioning the decrees of the lower appellate Court under Section 115 of the Civil P. C.

( 3 ) THE contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no hearing and decision of the question whether the assessments in each of the case are recoverable and that the former batch of suits having been thrown our, on a ground unrelated to the merits of the issue directly invoked in the present suits, no bar of res judicata arises. This petition is countered by the learned counsel for the respondents who maintained that the course of action for the earlier set of suits and the present bunch of suits is the same and that the rule that there can only be but one proceedings on foot of the identical cause of action is applicable, notwithstanding that, the dismissal of the suits on the former occasion was due to a defective form of the actions.

( 4 ) AT the outset it may be mentioned that none of the decisions relied on by the learned District Judge relay bears on the point arising for decision. though numerous reported cases were adverted to by the District Judge, none of them can be considered relevant for the decision of the question on hand. The learned counsel for respondent could not derive any help from the cases cited by the District Judge and rightly conceded that they are of no help to the defendant. I am therefore, not dealing with the authorities cited by the lower appellate court and there is no need to show by reference to the ratio of each of them the patent irrelevancy of the citations.

( 5 ) THE question has to be considered with reference to the express terms of Section 11, of the Civil P. C. because one is concerned herewith the effect of a decision in a former suit. One of the conditions for the application of the bar of res judicata to a second or subsequent suit is that the matter directly and substantially in issue of the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided" by the court in the former suit. The argument advanced for the petitioner is based on the requirement viz. , that the issue must have been heard and decided in the former suit and that where the former adjudication did not decide the issue there can be no bar to the maintainability f the subsequent suit. It is urged that the dismissal of the suits by the appellate Court on the