Back
DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
Usha Rai, W/o. Shri Kamal Singh Rai – Appellant
Versus
Sanskrit Pathsala Samiti, Pipariya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J.
This second appeal has been preferred by appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 29-1-2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Sohagpur in Civil Appeal No. 17-A/1993, affirming the final order dated 27-7-1993 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Pipariya in Civil Suit No. 4-A/1989, whereby dismissing the suit as barred by res judicata.
2. Facts in short are that the appellants/plaintiffs had instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with the allegations that the plaintiff 1 is owner of plot No. 15 admeasuring 1740 sq.ft. of Khasra No. 2/1 situated in Pipariya, which was purchased by her from Rameshchandra vide registered sale deed dated 1-4-1980. It is also alleged that respondent had filed a civil suit No. 38-A/80 for possession of land 0.04 acre, which was dismissed on 4-5-1982 by the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Sohagpur, which was reversed in appeal and suit was decreed on 8-10-1987 by first Appellate Court, which attained finality vide order dtd. 5-5-1988 passed in SA No. 15/88 by High Court.
3. The appellants further pleaded that Khasra No. 2/1 was having total area 0.26 acre, out of which the defe
The principle of res judicata bars re-litigation of matters already decided, confirming that the earlier judgment is binding and the current suit is not maintainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of res judicata and limitation in determining the admissibility of the suit. The court emphasized the importance of adjudicated iss....
The principle of res judicata bars litigation on matters already adjudicated, and can be decided as a preliminary issue when sufficient materials exist.
(1) CPC confers no jurisdiction upon Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as a preliminary issue and where decision on issue depends upon question of fact, it cannot be tried as a prel....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of res judicata in a suit for declaration, possession, and injunction, and the binding nature of a finding on an issue relating to ....
The court established that a consent decree bars subsequent suits on the same matter, reinforcing the principles of res judicata and the limitations on challenging such decrees under the CPC.
Power conferred on Courts under Rule 3 of Order 17 of CPC to decide suit on merits for default of a party is a drastic power which seriously restricts remedy of unsuccessful party for redress.
Dismissal of a suit for a technical or formal defect or for non-compliance with a condition precedent does not constitute a bar to a subsequent suit.
The court ruled that an order concerning res-judicata cannot be challenged after significant delay, emphasizing the principles of estoppel by conduct and the need to maintain judicial efficiency.
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
