Res judicata does not apply if the subject matter of the current suit is distinct from previous litigation. Furthermore, a party in settled possession is entitled to an injunction against unlawful interference, regardless of whether absolute title is established.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by some of the defendants, assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the suit for permanent injunc(on, earlier dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 15.12.2001, came to be decreed in favour of the plain(ff by the learned Addi(onal District Judge, Ambala, vide judgment dated 05.03.2005.

2. For the sake of convenience, the par(es are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The dispute pertains to a vacant parcel of land situated in Abadi Deh near Railway Sta(on, Barara, District Ambala, as depicted by le0ers ABCDE with red colour in the site plan (Ex.P1). The case of the plain(ff is that he has been in exclusive use and possession of the said property since the (me of his forefathers. According to him, the property serves as a passage for ingress and egress to his adjoining house and shops exis(ng on eastern side and is also used for placing goods connected with his business. It is alleged that the defendants, whose shops are located on the western and northern sides of the suit property, have no right, (tle or interest therein, yet they a0empted to interfere with his peaceful use and possession, thereby necessita(ng the filing of the present suit for permanent injunc(on in a representa(ve capacity under Order I Rule 8 CPC.

4. The defendants contested the suit by raising preliminary objec(ons regarding maintainability, locus standi, and the bar of res judicata. It was contended that the very property in dispute had earlier been the subject ma0er of li(ga(on ini(ated by the uncles of the plain(ff, which was dismissed up to the level of this High Court, thereby conclusively determining the rights of the par(es. According to the defendants, the property had been acquired by them through an exchange with the District Board, Ambala, and formed part of Khasra No.590. They denied any right or possession of the plain(ff over the suit property and asserted their exclusive ownership and possession.

5. Upon apprecia(on of evidence led by the par(es, the trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plain(ff failed to establish any right or interest in the suit property and that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. However, in appeal, the First Appellate Court reappraised the en(re evidence and reversed the findings.

6. Assailing the aforesaid reversal, Learned counsel for the appellants–defendants contends that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court. It is argued that the suit property in the present case is iden(cal to the property involved in the earlier li(ga(on between the par(es, and therefore, the suit was rightly held by the trial Court to be barred by the principle of res judicata. On this basis, it is prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and that of the trial Court be restored.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–plain(ff supports the impugned judgment and submits that the First Appellate Court has correctly appreciated the evidence by comparing the site plan (Ex.P1) with that of the earlier li(ga(on. It is contended that the property in dispute in the present suit is dis(nct from the one involved in the previous proceedings, and thus, the bar of res judicata is not a0racted. Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal has been prayed for.

8. This Court has considered the rival submissions and carefu