IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.480 of 2006 RAM GATI SINGH Versus KRISHNA PATHAK & ORS ----------- 5 28/7/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite parties. The submissions which was noticed by both the courts while holding the present suit to be barred by resjudicata is not being controverted by counsel for the petitioner. Of course, all that which has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner is that another order of the Court below which has been relied by the counsel for the opposite parties for establishing that earlier a similar application having been rejected on merit being not on record should not be looked till the same is brought on record of this case. in the considered opinion of this Court such a plea of the counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in the eye of law and must be rejected. There is no dispute that earlier an exactly similar application has been rejected by the court below and therefore it was necessary for the petitioner to have annexed such order for establishing that the aforementioned order is not dated 21.6.1995 but 9.11.1995. The order dated 21.6.1995 passed by the Court below clearly records that the application sought to be pressed 2 for dismissing of the suit on the ground of resjudicata was only disposed of with an observation that the plea of res-judicata was to be considered at a subsequent stage when the connected documents pertaining to the same would be brought on record. Thus such plea of the petitioner is fit to be rejected. This Court even otherwise is satisfied that the impugned orders passed by both the courts do not require any interference in as much the findings of the suit being barred by res-judicata has been recorded in the light of the admitted facts and records. Counsel for the petitioner infact has failed to point out any error in such findings recorded by both the Courts. Accordingly, there is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar