Remanded

Gurdwara Pargat Sahib v. Jagtar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jul 2011RSA/1367/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal concerns a suit for permanent injunction dismissed by the first appellate court based on a decree later set aside by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remitted the matter for reconsideration regarding res judicata.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree dated 16.01.2003 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned first Appellate Court for fresh determination.

Gurdwara Pargat Sahib Vs Jagtar Singh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Date of Decision : 14.07.2011

¶3

RSA No.1367 of 2003

¶4

Gurdwara Pargat Sahib Managing Committee & others ...Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

Baba Jagtar Singh and others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶9

Present : Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶10

Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. R.V.S.Chugh, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶11

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in the management of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

¶13

It is not disputed that earlier two suits were filed by defendant No.1 Baba Jagtar Singh bearing suit No.337 of 1986, wherein the issue was registration of the plaintiff-society. The said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 17.04.2001, but decreed by the learned first Appellate Court on 08.01.2002. Said decree was affirmed by this Court in RSA No.880 of 2002. But the said judgments have been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6058 of 2004 vide order dated 28.09.2010 and the matter remanded to the learned trial Court for fresh determination in accordance with law.

¶14

¶15

RSA No.1367 of 2003

¶16

Civil Suit No.253 of 1996 was filed by defendant No.1 against Subeg Singh. The said suit was decreed in the appeal on 19.03.2001 and the said judgment has attained finality.

¶17

In the present suit for permanent injunction, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit, but in appeal the judgment of Civil Suit No.253 of 1996 was admitted into additional evidence. The first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal relying upon the judgment in the first suit i.e. Civil Suit No.337 of 1986 holding it to be res judicata, whereas the judgment dated 19.03.2001 was found to be relevant as evidence.

¶18

The present appeal initially came up for hearing before this Court on 12.10.2007. The same was dismissed finding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. In an appeal against the said order, the matter has been remitted to this Court by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19.01.2010 in Civil Appeal No.477 of 2010 to examine the question that the first Appellate Court has not invoked the doctrine of res judicata on the basis of judgment dated 19.03.2001, but on the basis of judgment and decree dated 08.01.2002, which was subject matter of Civil Appeal No.6058 of 2004.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and found that the learned first Appellate Court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant on the basis of judgment and decree dated 08.01.2002, which was subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6058 of 2004. The learned first Appellate Court has not returned finding that the judgment dated 19.03.2001 operates as res judicata. Since the entire basis of the judgment of the first Appellate Court has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the issues as arise from the

¶20

¶21

RSA No.1367 of 2003

¶22

pleadings between the parties and the evidence, are required to be decided by the learned first Appellate Court.

¶23

Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2003 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned first Appellate Court for deciding the matter afresh on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record in accordance with law.

¶24

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned first Appellate Court on 05.09.2011.

¶25

14.07.2011 Vimal

¶26

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

Gurdwara Pargat Sahib v. Jagtar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdwara Pargat Sahib v. Jagtar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dynamic Continental Pvt. Ltd. Vs Lee Cooper (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Pooja Enterprises Vs Dsc Ltd.

M/S Vikas & Associates Vs Meghdoot Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd.

M/S S.P.Singla Constructions(P) Vs the Chief Engineer (the Employer) World Bank Anr.

Opera Infratech and Developers Vs Hry Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt

M/S Marshal Engineers Vs State of Haryana & Ors.