The principle of res judicata and the bindingness of the earlier judgment were central to the court's decision.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/plaintiff/landlord against the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 23.7.2015 whereby the first appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court decreeing the suit for possession with respect to shop bearing no.1/9255, Plot no.12, West Rohatash Nagar Chowk, Babarpur Road, Shahdara, Delhi-32 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The first appellate court by the impugned judgment has held that the trial court has committed an error in not considering the fact that the respondent/defendant has not admitted the jurisdiction of the civil court and in fact claimed application of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 i.e. effectively holding and stating, though not clearly saying so, that there was no scope of application of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Besides the first appellate court not mentioning the fact with respect to Order XII Rule 6 CPC being not applicable, the first appellate court has, very surprisingly, passed no order for remanding the suit to the trial court for decision inasmuch as if the first appellate court by the judgment was of the opinion that the defendant has not admitted the non-applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act to the area where the suit property is situated, then, the first appellate court ought to have remanded the suit for trial on the disputed question of fact, however, the first appellate court failed to do so. In fact the judgment of the first appellate court flies in the face of the doctrine of res judicata contained in Section 11 CPC, and which aspect will be discussed hereinafter.

2. The relevant paras of the impugned Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 23.7.2015 are paras 18 to 21 and these paras read as under:-

“18. Defendant has disputed the jurisdiction of court claiming that the suit property is situated in Revenue Estate of Village Sikdarpur, whereas documents placed by plaintiff in respect of property comprises suit property suggest that suit property is situated in Revenue Estate of Village Uldhanpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi. It is clear from the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Sheel Kumar Goel (supra) that area comprises of Village Uldhanpur was included in the schedule of Delhi Rent Control Act for applicability of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

19. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that Ld. Trial court has committed an error by not considering the fact that defendant has not admitted the jurisdiction of court as he disputed the same. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that impugned order suffers illegality and infirmity and therefore, same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, impugned order dated 01/01/2015 is hereby set aside. Appeal is disposed of as allowed.

20. Considering the facts, no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared.

21. Appeal file be consigned to record room. TCR be sent back to the court concerned with copy of this judgment.”

3. The following substantial question of law is framed for decision of the present second appeal:-

“Whether the first appellate court could have ignored the bindingness of the earlier stage judgment of a co-ordinate court/ADJ dated 28.10.2013 in the same very suit which was in appeal holding that the Delhi Rent Control Act does not apply to the suit premises?”

4. It is trite that the principle of res judicata has the effect that the merits of the earlier judgment have not to be seen which have become final and the earlier judgment, even if it is presumed to have wrongly been decided, the issue is binding on the parties once the same achieves finality. It is no longer res integra that a decision between the parties of an issue at an earlier stage in the suit operates as res judicata for the later stages of the suit vide Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Another 1999 (5) SCC 590. Between the same parties and in this very suit