R.S.A No. 1054 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1054 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : February 16, 2010 Suraj Bhan, ...... Appellant (s) v. Dedraj and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for partition. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that in the previous suit for permanent injunction the plaintiff had not been able to prove that he was a co-owner of the site in dispute. This finding has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. The following questions have been proposed :- “ a) Whether it is mandatory for the first appellate Court to give findings on issue No.1 and 2 which is basic R.S.A No. 1054 of 2009 (O&M) issue between the parties ? b) Whether there is mis-appreciation or non-leading of evidence by the courts below while coming on the conclusion that the plaintiff is not the co-sharers in the suit property ? c) Whether suit is barred by res judicata when the previous suit was for permanent injunction and the present suit is for partition ?” The main question argued is question (c). Counsel for the appellant has urged that the present suit cannot be held to be barred by res judicata since the earlier suit was for permanent injunction while the present one is for partition. In my opinion, this argument is misconceived. In view of the same issue arising in the earlier suit and the finding thereon, it has to be held that the issue regarding title of the appellant arose in the earlier suit also and, thus, the finding recorded thereon had to be res judicata. Once question (c) is held against the appellant, questions (a) and (b) do not arise. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 16, 2010. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 1054 of 2009 (O&M)