Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Arun Tandon, J.
Udai Raj Yadava, Ganga Din
Versus
Ist. Additional District Judge
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 2627 of 1989
Decided On : 05 April 2004
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 2627 Of 1989
Order IX Rule 9 - Barred subsequent suit - [CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, Order IX Rule 9]
Fact of the Case:
The original suit was dismissed in default, and a subsequent suit was filed by some of the original plaintiffs. The trial court held that the subsequent suit was barred, but the revisional court allowed the revision. The High Court found that the subsequent suit was barred for some plaintiffs but allowed it for one plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court set aside the revisional court's finding that the subsequent suit was not barred and held that the suit was barred for some plaintiffs but allowed it for one plaintiff.
Issues: Whether the subsequent suit was barred by the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The subsequent suit was found to be barred for some plaintiffs but allowed for one plaintiff based on the interpretation of Order IX Rule 9 and the legal definition of 'plaintiff'.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the revisional court's finding and held that the subsequent suit was barred for some plaintiffs but allowed it for one plaintiff, directing the trial court to proceed with the suit only on behalf of the allowed plaintiff.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri V. K. Singh, holding brief of Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. M. D. Singh Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1.
( 2 ) ORIGINAL Suit No. 471 of 1980 was filed by four petitioners, namely-Lal Bahadur Yadav, bajrangi Yadav, Maheep Yadav and Shiv Nath Yadav against seven respondents, namely- Udai raj, Brijraj Yadav, Ramratan Yadav, Ramjatan Yadav, Shivjatan Yadav, Rampejan and harendra. The reliefs prayed for in the said suit, read as follows:
" (a) Adalat say bajariya degree hukm Imtahal dwami prativadigan ko agya di jai ki ve kabja dakhal ham vadlgan par zameen nijai mal usper isthit chijon ke mana va muzahim na ho aur na uspar kisi prakar ka swatwa kayam karan aur na apney makan ka kol darwaja iss zameen per kayam karan sur no usse kisi prakar id amdaraft karen mallyat dsdarol Moo. 200/- hal kyonki mallyat ka 1/5 Moo. 200/- say kam hal.
(b) Yahki agar dauran mukadma main pratiwadigan kisi prakar ka koi nirman karney ya koi todfod karan to uss soorat main bajriya hukm imtenal prativadigan ko hukm diya jai ki andar miyad mooina adalat apna nirman yas anya karya ko hatakar zameen ko khali kar bahalst assll kar deven, Agar Adalatal Agar Adalat ki agya ka ullanghan karen to bajriya ahalkar adalat tamila degree basrapa prativadigan kar diya jaya. Mallyat dadral haza Moo. 200/- kayam ki gal hia. Kyonki allyat zameen ka 1/5 Moo. 200/- kayam ki gal hia. Kyonki mallyat zameen ka 1/5 moo. 200/- say kam hal.
(c) Yahki kisi karan sey zameen nizal say vadigan Li badkhali sanbit ho to use surat main degree dakhal bal bahak vadign virudh prativadigan sadeer parmal jevey. Dardarsi haza ka mulyankan Moo. 200/- malkiyat zameen va uss per isthit chijon key hain.
(d) Kool kharch mukadma zimma prativadigan ayadkiya jave.
(e) Ooprokat dadarsi hai ke alava ya bajey kisi anya dadarsi ke vadigan najdik rai adalat adhikari ho to ata pharmal numbaran 7/- 030, 8/-010, 9-032, Ajruya Batvara San 1917 Isvi babat Mauza Ghanghata, Paragana-Autrualiya, Zila Azamgarh mal uspar isthit chijon key hain. "
( 3 ) THE said suit was dismissed in default on 21. 10. 1981. An application was filed for recall of the order dated 21st October, 1981, dismissing the suit, was also dismissed. Against the said order, a revision was filed, which was also dismissed. In such circumstances, the order dismissing the suit became final between the parties.
( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY Original suit No. 99 of 1984 was filed by the plaintiffs of Suit No. 471 of 1980 along with one Sri Lagan Yadav, S/o Sri Dalijeet Yadav against the same defendants, who were parties of Suit No. 471 of 1980. Reliefs prayed for, in the subsequent suit, read as follows:
" (a) Yah ki nayalaya say prativadigan ke virudh adesh ish visay ka parit kiya jave ki prativad ashriyaya shikayti aj kisam nand khuntariat chchappar ko vivadit bhumi say akshar A. B. C. D. , say nayalaya dwara nirdharit vivad ke andar hatakar ya darwata mizal band karka zameen bahalat ashil kar deva, basurat kashir rahney tamila degree zariya ahalkar adalat pratiyadigan ke kharchon sa kara diya jaye, Tayun ish dadarshi ka vastey adhikar sunval Moo. 1000 rupya ya aday rasamy Moo, 200 rupya hai.
(b) Yah ki nayalaya se prativadigan ke virudh asthal nishedhagayan ish visay ki parit ki jave ki vey kabje dakhal vadigan upar vivadit bhumi va ushmay isthit vadigan ki chijon par mana muzahim na hon, na darwaja nizal se vivadit bhumi main bamdaraft karan. Tabun is dadarshi ka dstey adhikar smapt moo. 1000 rupaya bakdar maphit vivadit bhumio va ushmey isthi chijon ke hain thath vastey aday rasum malkiyat ka 1/5 Moo. 200/- rupaya hi.
(c) Yah ki yadi vivadit bhumi ka kisi aaj say babakhall vadigan karar paveyn to uss par dakai bhi dikhaya jave, tagun is dadarshi ka Moo. 10 rupya bakdar baliyat vivadit bhumi hai.
(d) Yad ki kook kharch ginka prativadigan aayad kiya jave. "
( 5 ) BEFORE the trial Court objection was filed
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
