AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The District Judge was, we think, wrong in holding that the suit was barred u/s 13 of the Civil Procedure Coda (XIV of 1882), as the Court in
which the first suit was brought was not competent to try the present suit. We think he was also wrong in holding that it was barred by Section 43.
Reading the plaint in this earlier suit it does not appear to us to allege dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendant, but a certain degree of
interference with the plaintiff''s possession. The present plaint alleges that the defendant occupied the well, and in effect the plaintiff had been
dispossessed. The two causes of action, therefore, were not the same and the bar u/s 43 does not arise. We set aside the decree and remand the
suit for disposal according to law.