This is a second appeal where the court dismissed the appeal holding that the plaintiff was barred by res judicata. Previously, a similar prayer for mandatory injunction in the first suit was not granted. Section 11 of the CPC was applied to dismiss the present suit.
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.5388 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.5388 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Order: 07.02.2019
M/s G.D.S.Computer Centre, Faridabad
..Appellant
Versus
Shree Shakti Sewa Dal (Regd., Faridabad
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.(Oral)
Plaintiff-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Court below.
It is undisputed that the plaintiff while filing the previous suit had made a similar prayer for mandatory injunction which was not granted.
Both the courts have correctly held that once the relief which was prayed in the previous suit was not granted, the same shall be deemed to have been refused in accordance with Section 11, Explanation 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, it would operate as resjudicata.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a tenant and, therefore, the landlord has no right to keep his articles in the tenanted premises.
This court has considered the submission. This was exactly the case of the plaintiff in the previous suit. Once the present suit is hit by rule
NARESH KUMAR 2019.02.13 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
RSA No.5388 of 2014 (O&M)
-2-
of resjudicata as found by the courts below, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to reagitate the matter.
In view thereof, this court does not find any good ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below.
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
February 07, 2019 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
NARESH KUMAR 2019.02.13 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second suit on the same issue is maintainable once the relief was refused in a previous suit.
Whether Section 11, Explanation 5 of the CPC makes the bar a bar on res judicata if the relief was not granted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s G.D.S.Computer Centre, Faridabad
Shree Shakti Sewa Dal (Regd., Faridabad
Anil Kshetarpal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
