AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant laying challenge to the order dated 28.11.2016, passed by the Additional District Judge
No.4, Bikaner, whereby the order of the Trial Court dated 05.12.2015 has been affirmed.
The facts in nutshell, necessary for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant - plaintiff had purchased a property pursuant to an
auction conducted by the State / Collector in 1963 for a sum of Rs.45,000/-.
It is a matter of record that against the said sale, the respondents had taken up the legal proceedings in Board of Revenue and thereafter a writ
petition came to be filed before this Court, which was allowed on 12.07.1985. The special appeal filed by the appellant against the aforesaid order
was also rejected by the Division Bench. The respondent went to the Supreme Court, which too rejected the SLP filed by the appellant, vide its
order dated 12.12.1989.
Having lost the battle till Supreme Court, the appellant instituted a suit against the respondents for injunction, and for taking possession.
In the said suit, respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and challenged the maintainability of
the suit.
While deciding the application filed by the respondents under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial court framed
preliminary issue and decided the same, while allowing the application.
According to respondents - defendants, the said suit was barred by law, as the rights of the parties have been finally determined by the Supreme
Court. The said application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be allowed by the Trial Court, vide its order dated
05.12.2015 and the Trial Court held the suit to be barred by law, in light of the judgment of Supreme Court and this Court.
Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 05.12.2015, the appellant preferred an appeal, which was registered as Appeal Decree
No.87/2016 and came to be rejected by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Bikaner.
This is how the appellant has come before this Court, by way of filing the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
procedure.
Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though his rights qua the subject property has been finally determined by the
Hon''ble Supreme Court, yet the respondents - defendants cannot take possession of the contentious property until and unless they make payment
of the amount deposited by him.
In this regard, he invited the attention of this Court, towards the observation made in judgment dated 12.12.1989 of Hon''ble Supreme Court
and submitted that it was required of the State Government to make payment of the amount, already deposited by the plaintiff.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that as far as rights of the parties in relation of subject property, which is allegedly purchased by the appellant, are
concerned, the same have attained finality vide order dated 12.12.1989, passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court and appellant''s rights in this regard
has been denied.
In this view of the matter, the appellant - plaintiff cannot be permitted to resurrect the legal battle once again by way of instituting the suit in
question. Learned courts below have rightly rejected the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while holding the suit to be
not maintainable.
This Court concurs with the view taken by the courts below and holds that the suit filed by the appellant - plaintiff was barred by law, on the
principle of res judicata.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court.
The appeal at hand is therefore rejected.