Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41471
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
BHAMA – Appellant
Versus
SARADA.M.K – Respondent
OP(C)/1445/2019
M.SANTHI (K/868/2011), G.RANJU MOHAN, P.VISHNU PRASAD, MALAVIKA SASI, SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH, SRI.K.P.PRASANTH, SHRI.KASYAP VISHNU
The court established that prior findings related to injunctions do not preclude consideration of res judicata in subsequent trials.
Headnote:
Injunction - Partition Suit - CPC Order II Rule 2 - res judicata - The court analyzed provisions related to res judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, determining that the trial court must consider these arguments on their merits without influence from prior injunction orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, defendants in a partition suit, challenged an injunction order claiming that a previous partition suit had been dismissed, thus invoking res judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the trial court to adjudicate the partition suit uninfluenced by the injunction order, allowing the petitioners to raise their res judicata argument at the appropriate stage.
Issues: Whether the injunction issued by the trial court should be reconsidered in light of claims of res judicata and findings from a previous partition suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that procedural issues like res judicata must be addressed during trial, despite earlier injunction decisions.
Final Decision: The original petition is disposed of; trial court to decide on merits.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 04th day of December, 2021 The challenge in this original petition is against Ext.P5 order of injunction as confirmed by Ext.P6 judgment. The suit is one for partition of an extent of 11.667 cents of land. The petitioners, who are defendants 20 to 23 in the suit, contended that the respondent/plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for partition of 20 cents of land, including the plaint schedule property and the said suit having been dismissed, the subsequent suit is barred by res judicata and Order II Rule 2 of CPC. The petitioners resisted the injunction application filed by the respondent based on the above contention, despite which the trial court granted the injunction. Hence, petitioners apprehend that the findings in the injunction application will have an impact on their contention regarding res judicata and under Order II Rule 2 of CPC.
Having heard the learned Counsel on either side, the original petition is disposed of, directing the trial court to decide the original suit untrammeled by the observations in the impugned orders and based on the evidence tendered by the parties. The petitioners can raise the contention regarding bar of res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC at the appropriate stage. If such contentions are raised, the trial court shall consider the same on merits.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/04.12.2021 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1445/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED
27.3.2017 IN OS NO 200/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFFS COURT CHERTHALA EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED
27.3.2017 IN IA NO 1217/2017 IN OS NO
200/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFFS COURT CHERTHALA EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
27.3.2019 FILED IN SUPPORT OF IA NO
1217/2017 IN OS NO 200/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFFS COURT CHERTHALA EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO IA NO
1217/2017 IN OS NO 200/2017 DATED
31.5.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFFS COUET, CHERTHALA.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
31.8.2016 IN OS NO 157/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFFS COURT, CHERTHALA EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
10.11.2017 IN IA NO 1217/2017 IN OS NO
200/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, CHERTHALA EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
16.10.2018 IN CMA 30/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SUB JUDGE CHERTHALA
