High Court Of Orissa
R. C. Patnaik, J.
BAIRAGI CH.DAS - Appellant
Versus
KARTIK CHANDRA DAS - Respondent
Civil Revn. 222 Of 1979
Decided On : 07/29/1982
RES JUDICATA - ORDER 14, RULE 2, C. P. C. - SECTION 11, C. P. C. - COURT'S DISCRETION TO DECIDE PRELIMINARY ISSUE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Defendant No. 4 filed an application under Order 14, Rule 2, C. P. C. for deciding the question of res judicata as a preliminary issue before trial of other issues. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 filed objections stating that neither he nor defendant No. 2 being parties to the earlier suit, they were not bound by any finding and moreover, they pleaded that title in the property was claimed by Gura not as the daughter of Hadi; but as daughter of Jema, and niece of Malli, who were the recorded owners.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial of the suit on a preliminary issue being discretionary under the amended Rule 2 of Order 14, refusal of the court to decide the issue as a preliminary issue does not involve any question touching jurisdiction of the court. The issue sought by defendant No. 4 to be decided as a preliminary issue was not a question of law and its determination would depend upon determination of certain facts which could be established by the parties leading evidence.
Issues: Whether the court can decide the question of res judicata as a preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2 of the Civil P. C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under the amended Rule 2 of Order 14, the court has the discretion to try an issue of law only if that issue relates to the jurisdiction of the court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. An issue of fact or a mixed issue of fact and law cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. The object being avoidance of piecemeal trial and protracted litigation, in case of doubt all the issues should be tried at one and the same time.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision application, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to decide the issue of res judicata as a preliminary issue.
R. C. PATNAIK, J.
( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order passed by the Munsif, Bhadrak, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to decide the question of res judicata as a preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2 of the Civil P. C.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts leading to the application are: Opposite Party No. 1 filed a suit for partition on the basis of his purchase under sale deed dated 16-1-70 from defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 4 mainly contested the suit claiming to have purchased the entire two decimals under sale deed dated 15-4-68, According to the said defendant, Gura (defendant No. 2) was not the daughter of Hadi Das and Jema as alleged by the plaintiff and sister of Makari, his vendor, His specific case was that Gura was the daughter of one Rama Das and had no connection with the family of Hadi Das. So, the purchase of the plaintiff was from an imposter. It was further alleged that in a previous suit filed by one Minki which was being contested by Gura, an issue was raised as to whether Gura wag the daughter of Hadi Das or Earn Das and it was decided by this Court that Gura was not the daughter of Hadi Das. He averred that the said finding in the earlier suit operated as res judicata and in view of the said finding, by the purchase the plaintiff did not acquire any title.
( 3 ) HAVING regard to the pleadings, an issue was struck as follows: "is the suit barred by the law of res judicata?" When the case was taken up for hearing, defendant No. 4 filed an application under Order 14, Rule 2, C. P. C. for deciding the question of res judicata as a preliminary issue before trial of other issues. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 filed objections stating that neither he nor defendant No. 2 being parties to Original Suit No. 46 of 1970 culminating in Second Appeal No. 149 of 1976, they were not bound by any finding and moreover, they pleaded that title in the property was claimed by Gura not as the daughter of Hadi; but as daughter of Jema, and niece of Malli, who were the recorded owners. According to them, it did not matter if it was found that Gura was not the daughter of Hadi Das. They, however, contended that the issue did neither relate to jurisdiction of the court nor to a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. They further urged that the decision of the issue would not finally dispose of the suit and it would be necessary to decide the other issues. The learned Munsif rejected the prayer of defendant No, 4. Hence this revi-sion,
( 4 ) THE provision contained in Order 14, Rule 2 of the Civil P. C. was amended by Central Act 104 of 1976. Under the Old Code, Order 14, Rule 2 read as follows:--
"where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined",
( 5 ) INTERPRETING the provision in the Old Code, the Supreme Court in S. S. Khanna v. F. J. Dillon (AIR 1964 SC 497) held (at p. 498):-
"under Order 14, Rule 2 where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined. The jurisdiction to try issues of law apart from the issues of fact may be exercised only where in the opinion of the Court the whole suit may be disposed of on the issues of law alone, but the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as preliminary issues. Normally all the issues in a suit should be tried by the Court: not to do so, especially when the decision on issues even of law depends upon the decision of is
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.