Two revision petitions challenged trial court orders dismissing rejection of a counter claim and closing the petitioners' evidence. The court held the counter claim arose from a separate cause of action based on a 1973 sale deed, and found no ground to interfere. Both revisions 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.
2024:PHHC:015320
| 126 | 2024:PHHC:015320 | |
|---|---|---|
| In the High Court of | Punjab and | Haryana, at Chandigarh |
| 1. |
Civil Revision No. 5931 of 2018 | |
| Chander Bhan and Others | ... Petitioner(s) | |
| Versus | ||
| Aashmin and Others | ... Respondent(s) | |
| AND | ||
| 2. |
Civil Revision No. 8081 of 2018 | |
| Chander Bhan and Others | ... Petitioner(s) | |
| Versus | ||
| Aashmin and Others | ... Respondent(s) |
DATE OF DECISION: 05.02.2024
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (In CR-5931-2018). Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (In CR-8081-2018).
Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.1 to 8.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2024.02.08 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and Order XXIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter integrity of this document
2024:PHHC:015320 Civil Revision No. 5931 of 2018 And 2 Civil Revision No. 8081 of 2018
referred to as “CPC”), the doctrine of res judicata and the suit, so filed, is beyond the period of limitation, has been dismissed.
CPC. Hence, the same is also hit by the doctrine of res judicata. The learned counsel further submits that the counter claim was filed by the petitioners on 21.12.2011, whereas the sale deed in favour of the counter claimants is of dated 08.06.1973. Hence, the suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation.
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2024.02.08 10:54 I attest to the accuracy anddeclaration that they are the owners in possession of the property by virtue integrity of this document
2024:PHHC:015320 Civil Revision No. 5931 of 2018 And 3 Civil Revision No. 8081 of 2018
of the sale deed dated 08.06.1973. Hence, the cause of action of previous suit and the subsequent counter claim is separate. Moreover, the respondents have claimed that they are the owners in possession by virtue of sale deed executed by the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants. Hence, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to declare that the suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation.
(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge
February 05, 2024 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2024.02.08 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Was the counter claim barred under Order XXIII Rule 4 CPC, res judicata, or limitation given a previously withdrawn suit?
Should the trial court's order closing petitioners' evidence with costs be interfered with in revision?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chander Bhan and Others
Aashmin and Others
Anil Kshetarpal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
