A plaintiff may not file a new suit based on the same cause of action after having abandoned a prior suit without court permission, as per Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of CPC.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Pankaj Jain, J. :

These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. Parties are fighting for succession of Mahant Sohan Dass @ Sohan Muni Chela Baba Jeon Dass Mohtmim of Dera Baba Dhian Dass. As per the plaintiff, Mahant Sohan Dass @ Sohan Muni died on 29.5.1988 but Satari ceremony of Mahant Sohan Dass @ Sohan Muni was carried out on 15.6.1988. The plaintiff claimed that during satari ceremony which was attended by various Mahants of Udasi Sect. The plaintiff was appointed as successor to Mahant Sohan Dass @ Sohan Muni in Bhekh ceremony as per the custom prevalent in Udasi sect. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as Mohtmim of Dera Baba Dhian Dass. The mutations sanctioned in favour of the defendant being successor of Janki Dass are illegal, null and void. The plaintiff further claimed a decree of possession. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant himself participated in the Bhekh ceremony. He is thus, estopped from claiming himself to be Mohtmim of the dera and from disputing appointment of the plaintiff.

2. The suit was contested by the defendant. The defendant claimed that it was Mohtmim Janki Dass who was appointed as successor of Mahant Sohan Dass @ Sohan Muni. Janki Dass was succeeded by Parma Nand, from whom the management of the dera was succeeded by the defendant. The suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial and the following issues were framed : -

“1. Whether Mahant Parma Nand is Mohtmim of the plaintiff Dera? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit land, which belongs to the Dera Baba Dhian Das? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration, as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether suit is within limitation? OPP

5. Whether Parmanand has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the present suit is barred under section 10 CPC, as alleged? OPD

7. Relief.

Additional Issue

6-A Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order 23 Rule 1(4) (b) CPC? OPD”

3. Both the Courts below have non-suited the plaintiff on issue No.6-A. It has come on record that earlier in time, the plaintiff filed suit for declaration with same prayer i.e. Civil Suit No.1275 of 1992. It was withdrawn by the plaintiff suffering statement on 15.4.1994 without seeking any permission to file fresh one. Thus, the present suit was barred under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1(4) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Bansal appearing for the appellant in RSA-3241-2013 have drawn attention of this Court to the findings recorded by the Courts below regarding Bhekh on the satari ceremony of Mahant Sohan Dass @ Sohan Muni. They contend that the plaintiff successfully proved that it was he who was appointed by Bhekh as successor of Mahant Sohan Dass @ Sohan Muni, yet the plaintiff has been non-suited merely on the technical ground.

5. Per contra, Mr. Jain learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 submits that reading of plaint filed in Civil Suit No.70 of 1998 and that of civil suit No.1275 of 1992, i.e. the earlier suit would make it clear that prayer for declaration made in both the suits is verbatim. He submits that once the plaintiff had already abandoned his claim seeking declaration to the effect that he was validly appointed Mohtmim of the dera, he is precluded under law from bringing fresh suit with same prayer. He thus submits that both the Courts below have rightly non-suited the plaintiff invoking Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of CPC.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after carefully perusing the records of the case, this Court finds that t