SA/170/2008 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 170 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= SHARDABEN DAMODARDAS PANDYA - Appellant(s) Versus MUKUNDKUMAR DALSUKHRAM PANDYA - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR NC NAYAK for Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6,1.2.7 MS JYOTSNA M AMIN for Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6,1.2.7 MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Date : 16/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants original plaintiffs have filed the Second Appeal u/s.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the order passed by the SA/170/2008 2/8 JUDGMENT learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.2, Kalol- Gandhingar in Regular Civil Appeal No.51 of 1997 on 17th November, 2006, by which the judgment and decree of the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) at Kalol passed in Regular Civil Suit No.171 of 1990 is confirmed. This Court has issued notice on 04.09.2008. On issuance of notice, Mr. Prabhakar Upadyay, learned advocate has filed his appearance on behalf of the respondent/original defendant. It is the case of the appellants that the appellants/plaintiffs filed suit being RCS No.171/90 for declaration to the effect that the defendant has no right to enter into the suit land bearing block Nos. 63/1, 63/2, 70 and 85/21 being ancestral land received by the plaintiffs in their share through their late father and also from creating any hindrances in their use and occupation thereof and for permanent injunction in the same terms with respect to the said lands in question situated and lying at village Mubarakpura, Tal. Kalol, District Gandhinagar on the strength of different revenue entries mutated from time to time. Prior to filing of Regular Civil Suit No.171 of 1990, the plaintiffs' late father had filed Civil Suit No.177 of 1989 which was withdrawn seeking permission to file afresh suit which permission was granted unconditionally by the learned Civil Judge. Though the plaintiffs have asked for the liberty to file a fresh suit, the same was not granted. Without SA/170/2008 3/8 JUDGMENT challenging the said order the plaintiffs have filed the present suit on the same subject matter and the learned Trial Judge has dismissed the said suit on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in view of the principle of Res Judicata. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellants have filed Regular Civil Appeal before the learned District Judge and the same also came to be dismissed. While dismissing the said appeal, the learned District Judge has specifically observed that it is clear and undisputed fact that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish their case under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Code so far as maintainability of the another suit on the principle of Res Judicata is concerned, and also under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the impugned order and judgment is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the said order and judgment. It is this order which is under challenge in the second appeal. Ms. Jyotsna Amin, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that the Courts below have grossly erred in arriving at the conclusion that the suit is barred by the principle of Res Judicata. She has further submitted that the earlier suit was withdrawn by the plaintiffs with a liberty to file a fresh suit. While granting such SA/170/2008 4/8 JUDGMENT permission to withdraw the suit, the learned Trial Judge has not stated anything with regard to the permission sought for by the plaintiffs to file a fresh suit. She has, therefore, submitted that whether the principle of Res Judicata is applicable especially when the earlier suit between the same parties has not been decided on merits and no issues have been determined is a substantial question of law. She has further submitted that it cannot be said that fresh suit is barred especially when in the earlier suit between the same parties, permission to withdraw the suit was prayed for and the same was not rejected. In support of her submission she relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in case of Sukumar Banerjee v. Dilip Kumar Sarkar and Ors. reported in AIR 1982 Calcutta 17, the decision of the Allahabad High Court in case of Bharat & Ors. v. Ram Pratap and Ors., reported in AIR 1985 Allahabad 61, the decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Jai Prakash v. Rajendra Prasad & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 Allahabad 112 and decision of this Court in case of Kantibhai D. Patel through Power of Attorney Holder Yogeshkumar K. Patel v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in 1998(1) G.L.R.183; and submitted that the fresh suit filed by the plaintiffs is not barred by the principle of Res Judicata and hence on the basis of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the substantial question of law proposed by the appellants is required to be framed by the Court. SA/170/2008 5/8 JUDGMENT Mr. Prabhakar Upadyay, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that since no permission has been granted by the trial Court while allowing the plaintiffs to withdraw the earlier suit, fresh suit is not maintainable and both the Courts below have, therefore, rightly held that the suit is barred by the principle of Res Judicata. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision of this Court in case of Narayan Jethanand, since deceased by his heirs & legal representatives v. Asapuri Vijay Saw Mill reported in 1995(1)G.L.H. 1147 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (K.V) Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2008 SC 946. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the orders passed by the Courts below and the various authorities cited before the Court, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises out of the orders passed by the Courts below. It is an admitted position that the earlier order passed by the trial Court whereby the plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw their suit unconditionally has become final, and the said order has not been challenged by the present appellants before the higher authorities. It is also an admitted position that the plaintiffs have sought the permission to file a fresh suit. However, the said permission was not granted. Though it is not specifically rejected, no reference was SA/170/2008 6/8 JUDGMENT made with regard to the permission sought for by the plaintiffs while withdrawing the earlier suit. It is, therefore, considered that no permission was granted by the Court. Despite this, the plaintiffs have filed fresh suit on the same subject matter and between the same parties. The plaintiffs' suit is, therefore, clearly hit by the principle of Res Judicata as the position of law is very clear on this subject. When the fresh suit is filed on the same subject matter and between the same parties, it is not maintainable unless the Court has granted specific permission to file such suit. Here the cases relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the appellants are altogether on different points. In those cases, the orders and judgments under challenge by the parties are those orders where the permission was refused and those very orders were under challenge. Here in the present case that earlier order was not challenged by the plaintiffs. So far as the subsequent suit is concerned, this Court has clearly taken the view in case of Narayan Jethanand (supra) that where the plaintiff withdraws the former suit without permission of the Court, he is precluded from institution of a fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter under Order 23, Rule 4 of the Code and against the same defendant. This rule is mandatory. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot thereafter institute a suit for enforcing what was the subject matter of the former suit. The subject matter in the former and subsequent suit was the same. The subject matter means series of acts or transactions alleged to exist SA/170/2008 7/8 JUDGMENT giving rise to the relief claimed. Therefore, in such a situation, when the former suit is withdrawn unconditionally or without any order granting leave to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring fresh suit. In the circumstances, would obviously operate a bar to a fresh suit, as contemplated by the provisions of Order 23, Rule 4. There is no reason, therefore, to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree recorded by the trial Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (K.V) Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra (Supra) has taken a view that “No doubt, Order 23, Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure states that where the plaintiff withdraws a suit without permission of the Court, he is precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter.” Considering the aforesaid judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as further considering the clear provisions of Order 23 of Civil Procedure Code, this Court is of the view that both the Courts below have taken the correct view in the matter and no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. Notice discharged. [K.A.PUJ,J.] jani SA/170/2008 8/8 JUDGMENT