A plaint may be rejected if it does not disclose a clear cause of action, particularly when the matter has been conclusively decided in a prior arbitral award.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2. The predecessor of the appellants in this 2^nd appeal, i.e., Naresh Prasad Saha, was the sole plaintiff before the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.290 of 2005 and after the death of Naresh Prasad Saha his legal heirs preferred the 1^st appeal vide RFA No.16 of 2018 being the appellants.

The parents of the respondents in this 2nd appeal were the defendants before the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.290 of 2005 and the respondents before the learned 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide RFA No.16 of 2018. When, during the pendency of the 1^st appeal, the parents of the respondents expired, then, the respondents in this 2^nd appeal were substituted in their places.

3. The properties described in Schedule-A of the plaint, i.e., Plot Not.257(gharabari, dokan ghara) A.0.16 decimals under Khata No.137 in Mouza-Baripada Town, Unit-6, Purunahatsahi in the district of Mayurbhanj are the suit properties.

4. The predecessor of the appellants in this 2^nd appeal, i.e., Naresh Prasad Saha filed a suit vide C.S. No.290 of 2005 being the plaintiff against the parents of the respondents in this 2^nd appeal in the court of the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Baripada praying for a declaration that,

“he is the absolute owner of the suit premises described in Schedule-A of the plaint, to restrain the defendants from entering into the suit properties/premises through municipality, to injuct the defendants permanently from coming into the suit premises/properties described in Schedule-A and to pass a decree for recovery of possession of the suit properties, if he(plaintiff) is found to be dispossessed from the suit properties during the pendency of the suit.”

As per the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff, Munilal Saha was their common ancestor. The said Munilal Saha died leaving behind his three sons, i.e., Ramdayal Saha, Raghunandan Saha and Jogeswar Saha.

Ramdayal Saha died leaving behind his six sons, i.e., Sibasankar Saha, Mangal Saha, Mohesh Saha, Sahadev Saha, Ranjeet Saha and Susil Saha. The said six sons of Ramdayal Saha were not made parties in the suit.

The 2^nd son of Munilal Saha, i.e., Raghunandan Saha died leaving behind his only son Hariprasad Saha.

Hariprasad Saha and his wife Shantilata Saha died on dated 05.12.2009 and 29.11.2009 respectively leaving behind the defendant nos.1(a) and 1(b), 2(a) and 2(b) as their successors.

The 3^rd son of Munilal Saha, i.e., Jogeswar Saha died leaving behind his two sons, i.e., Ganesh Prasad Saha and Naresh Prasad Saha. Naresh Prasad Saha is the plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.290 of 2005.

According to the case of the plaintiff Naresh Prasad Saha, there was long standing dispute between three sons of Munilal Saha, i.e., Ramdayal Saha, Raghunandan Saha and Jogeswar Saha and their litigation vide Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999 reached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in that Civil Appeal No.1068 of 1999 appointed a sole Arbitrator and the said sole Arbitrator allotted lands and buildings including the business of the parties, i.e., both the movable and immovable properties with assets and liabilities thereof between the three sons of Munilal Saha separately.

In that allotment, the market building inside Baripada town fell in the share of Hariprasad Saha(defendant no.1) and motor parts business, which was running in that market building fell in the share of the plaintiff.

On the basis of that settlement/allotment as per the order/direction of the H