C.R. No.1270 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1270 of 1995 Date of Decision: 04.08.2009 Pala Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus Ram Singh ....Respondent Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The civil revision is against the order passed by the trial Court taking up a preliminary issue whether the suit is barred by res judicata. The contention in defence that gave rise to the issue was that the very same plaintiff-Ram Singh, had suffered a judgment in a suit instituted in respect of the very same property by the defendants' father, Bachan Singh. The suit had been decreed ex parte and application to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed. He preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the Appellate Court. The decision granting a relief of permanent injunction in respect of the property had become final. Subsequently the sons of Ram Singh namely Didar Singh, Avtar Singh, Pyara Singh and Paramjit Singh filed a civil suit against the father of the defendants, Bachan Singh in Civil Suit No.551 of 1980. During the pendency of the suit, the C.R. No.1270 of 1995 -2- father-Bachan Singh died and the defendants were substituted as legal representatives. Ram Singh had also been cited as a co-defendant in the suit. The issue that had been framed was whether the father of the defendants namely Bachan Singh had exchanged a portion of the Bara in dispute as alleged in the plaint and cast onus of proof on the plaintiffs in that suit. The sons of the plaintiff did not lead any evidence and the suit again came to be dismissed on 06.12.1991. It is evident therefore that originally the suit filed by the defendants' father, Bachan Singh had been decreed for the relief of injunction and subsequently the suit instituted by the sons of Ram Singh had also been dismissed. 2. When the two rounds of litigations were over, Ram Singh again filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the sons of Bachan Singh who were also the defendants in the suit filed by Ram Singh's son earlier. It should be noticed that all the suits were for the bare reliefs of injunction and no declaratory relief had been asked. The question as to title was not relevant and the only issue in a suit for the bare relief of injunction ought to have been therefore the issue of possession. The plaintiff in Suit No.177 of 1992, who had been a party at all times in the earlier two litigations, could not have had a right to file a fresh suit in respect of the very same property. It was not merely a plea of res judicata that would bar the plaintiff. The suit would be barred also under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for, the plaintiff had suffered an ex parte decree and his attempt to set it aside was not fruitful. The plaintiff had, therefore, an additional bar to prosecute the suit afresh. C.R. No.1270 of 1995 -3- 3. The trial Court was in error in finding that the suit was properly filed and the issues were not congruent and that the suit could go for a full-fledged trial. The suit was a vexatious one and ought to have been thrown out at the threshold on the objection raised by the defendants. The order permitting the plaintiff to adduce further evidence by holding that the suit was not barred by res judicata is erroneous. The order of the learned Sub Judge, Ambala is set aside and the plaintiff's suit is ordered to be dismissed as not maintainable. The civil revision is allowed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 04, 2009 Pankaj*