1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal NO. 19/2010 (Kiran Sharad Roy VERSUS Chapa Nitai Mallick) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.S. Kukday, counsel for the appellant. Shri W.G. Paunikar, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 1, 2010 . The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the suit property which was allotted to the plaintiff, he being a refugee. The plaintiff also sought an injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The defendant, the wife of the plaintiff, pleaded that she was in possession of the suit property. It was the case of the defendant that the plaintiff had previously filed a suit for declaration against the defendant claiming to be the exclusive owner of the suit property and that suit was dismissed. Since the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the same was also dismissed, according to the defendant, the 2 judgment passed by the trial Court in that case had attained finality and the plaintiff was not entitled to raise the same issue in the instant case. The defendant pleaded that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by principles of Res-Judicata. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that both the Courts did not commit any error in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions of Section11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is necessary to note that in the previously filed suit, the plaintiff had claimed an almost identical declaration against the defendant that he was the absolute owner of the suit property and the trial Court, in the previous litigation, refused to grant the declaration in favour of the plaintiff. Since the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of the trial Court was also dismissed and the judgment passed by the trial Court had attained finality, both the Courts have rightly held in the instant case that the plaintiff was precluded from raising the same issue which was already decided by a competent Court. The judgments passed by both the Courts do not suffer from any illegality whatsoever and the submission made on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, that the cause of action in both the suit is different as the previous suit was 3 filed in view of the order passed by the Tahsildar and the present suit was filed in view of certain communications from the police authorities, is liable to be rejected. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE