Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Panna under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ of certiorari.

2. The facts which have led to this application are briefly these. The applicant claimed to be a tenant of Bachan Singh, opposite party, in village Bobasar. He made an application on the 16th of June, 1950 under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) to the Assistant Collector, Ratangarh, alleging that he had been dispossessed forcibly from his holding on the 9th of June 1950 and praying that he should be reinstated. On the 31st of August 1950, the Assistant Collector after holding a summary enquiry rejected the application under the Ordinance on the ground that it was not presented within three months of dispossession or within three months of the coming into force of the Ordinance. The Assistant Collector also seems to have found that the applicant had surrendered possession of his holding in March, 1949. The applicant went in revision to the Board of Revenue against this order. His revision was rejected on the 11th of April 1951 on the ground that his application under sec. 7 of the Ordinance was barred by time. Thereupon, the applicant filed a regular suit for possession of the holding. The suit was resisted by Bachan Singh and his first objection was that the court had no jurisdiction. He further objected that in view of the findings of the Assistant Collector and the Board of Revenue in the application under the Ordinance, the trial of certain issues raised in this suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. The revenue court framed seven issues one of which was regarding the maintainability of the suit. It first decided the ques-tion of maintainability and held that the suit was maintainable inspite of the decision under the Ordinance. That matter was taken in appeal to the Commis-sioner by Bachan Singh and the appeal was dismissed. Thereupon Bachan Singh went in second appeal to the Board of Revenue and the Board also rejected the appeal ; but the learned Members of the Board remarked in passing that the decision under the Ordinance might operate as res judicata When the case came back to the Assistant Collector, Bachan Singh contended that the points raised in issues Nos. 4 and 5 in the suit had already been decided in the proceedings under the Ordinance between the same parties and, therefore, these two issues snould be decided in his favour without any fresh evidence on the principle of res judicata. The Assistant Collector rejected this contention. Thereupon, Bachan Singh again went in appeal to the Commissioner. The Commissioner held that issues Nos. 4 and 5 could not be reagitated and in consequence, the suit of the applicant was dismissed. Thereupon, the applicant went in second appeal to the Board of Revenue which held that the decision of the points involved in issues Nos. 4 and 5 was res judicata in view of the decision in the proceedings under the Ordinance and consequently dismissed the appeal. The applicant has thereupon come to this Court and his main contention is that there could be no res judicata arising out of the proceedings under the Ordinance and the Revenue courts in holding that issues Nos. 4 and 5 were barred by the principle of res judicata were refusing to exercise jurisdiction vested in them to hear the parties, take their evidence and decide the issues according to law.

3. The application has been opposed on behalf of Bachan Singh and his objection is that the decision of the Board of Revenue is correct.

4. Now, sec. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with res judicata in suits. It is well settled that where S. 11 applies in terms, res judicata will bar the consideration of the same matter in the second suit, when it has been considered and decided in the first suit under the conditions mentioned in that section It is equally well settled that sec. 11 is not exhaustive and principles of res judicata apply e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document