CM No.9222-C of 2008 & RSA No.535 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.9222-C of 2008 & RSA No.535 of 2005 Decided on : 09.10.2009 Anil Kumar Chately & others ... Appellants versus Vinod Kumar Chately & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. G.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondents. **** 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 the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the appellants for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents from raising construction over the street. Both the courts below have held that the present suit is barred by res judicata since the father of the appellants had earlier filed a suit pertaining to the same dispute and the same had been dismissed. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether a street, which is used by public at large and is maintained by Municipal Committee can be termed as a private street, particularly when, there CM No.9222-C of 2008 & RSA No.535 of 2005 -2- is not even a single iota of evidence, showing that the street in question is a private street? ii)Whether the defendants/respondents have a right to block the ingress and outgress and discharge of rainy water of the house of the plaintiffs/appellants by raising construction in the street in question? iii)Whether the defendants/respondents have a legal right to encroach upon the street in question adjoining to the house of the plaintiffs/appellants without having any legal right in the same, particularly when, the existence of the street in question is admitted to be more than 40 years old? iv)Whether the decision in the earlier suit, which is not between the parties to the present suit and relates to different cause of action, operates as res judicata for subsequent suit? v)Whether the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants which is based on independent cause of action and between the different parties is barred by principle of res judicata? vi)Whether a material prejudice has been caused to the plaintiffs/appellants, resulting in failure and miscarriage of justice by non-framing of necessary issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties in the facts and circumstances of the case? CM No.9222-C of 2008 & RSA No.535 of 2005 -3- vii)Whether the impugned judgments and decrees, passed by ld. Courts below, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants are illegal, without jurisdiction, perverse, result of misreading and non- appreciation of evidence and record? Questions No.(iv) & (v) relate to the seminal issue regarding res judicata. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings of res judicata are unwarranted in the circumstances of this case. It is not disputed that once the issue of res judicata has to be held against the appellants, questions No.(i) to (iii), (vi) & (vii) would be of no significance. Consequently, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed. No costs. October 09, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE