R.S.A. No. 1899 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1899 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 6.5.2009 Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana & another .......... Appellants Versus Zila Parishad through Deputy Chief Executive & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2008, passed by the learned lower appellate Court , reversing the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff / respondents filed an inter pleader suit seeking the adjudication of question of title between plaintiff / appellant herein and respondent No.1 herein, by claiming, that the plaintiff / respondent was tenant under the appellants. The learned trial Court decreed the suit. However, the learned lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court by invoking the provisions of Section 88 of the CPC, in coming to the conclusion that inter pleader suit by the plaintiff / tenant was R.S.A. No. 1899 of 2009 2 not competent. No fault can be found with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, as it cannot be disputed that in view of the provisions of Section 88 of the CPC read with Order 35 Rule 5 of the CPC the suit by tenant as framed was not competent. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,however, contends that the appeal raises the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- 1. Whether the learned lower appellate Court was justified in adjudicating the ownership rights of appellant and respondent No.1 even though the suit was not competent ? In support of the substantial question of law the learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court are likely to come in way of the plaintiff / appellant to claim right in property, as in fact the property is falling in the Municipal committee and not under the Zila Parshiad or the Panchayat. I find no force in this contention. The apprehension of the appellant is misconceived as there was no dispute inter se between the parties qua the title. The mere observations made by the learned trial Court cannot be finding which may operate as res- judicata in subsequent suit, specially when suit stands dismissed as not maintainable. The appellant as well as Zila Parishad were defendants, in the suit thus decree is in favour of defendants. R.S.A. No. 1899 of 2009 3 The substantial question of law claimed does not arise for consideration. No merit. Dismissed. 6.5.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE