AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Wadsworth, J.—In this case a former District Munsif heard arguments on the question whether the petition under Madras Act IV of 1938
would lie u/s 19, having regard to the provisions of Section 10(2)(ii) and he passed a considered order that there was no vendor''s lien in respect
of the liability and no obstacle under that section to the application. He then adjourned the matter for further enquiry. He was transferred and his
successor instead of proceeding with the matter where his predecessor left it, reopened the issue which had been decided and gave a contrary
finding and dismissed the application on that finding. I am of opinion that he had no jurisdiction to do that. Granting that the matter is not precisely
covered by Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, that section is not exhaustive of the applicability of the principle of res judicata. Hook v.
Administrator-General of Bengal (1921) 40 M.L.J. 423 : L.R. 48 IndAp 187 : ILR 48 Cal. 499 . When an issue has been made the subject of a
final order by a Court, that order cannot be ignored by a succeeding Judge nor has the Court jurisdiction to alter its decision except on grounds
which would justify a review vide B as ant a Kumar Das v. Kusum Kumari Dasi ILR (1916) 44 Cal. 28. If the correctness of this order is to be
attacked otherwise, it can only be done by way of appeal against the final order on the application, which remedy is still open. The petition is
allowed with costs and the application is remitted to the trial Court for disposal on the merits.