CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2008) 11 AHC CK 0032

Mewa Lal vs Kedar Nath and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 4 November 2008 · Citation: (2009) 1 AWC 563 : (2009) 106 RD 330

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tarun Agarwala, J
RESULT
Dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 345 words

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Civil Suit No. 2 of 1972 was decreed by the trial court by an order dated 25.3.1985. The said decree was put in execution. The petitioner, being a stranger, filed an objection under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the C.P.C. alleging that the property in question cannot be attached or put to auction, inasmuch as, the trial court had earlier rejected an application of the plaintiff for attachment of the property before judgment which was rejected by the trial court. The petitioner''s objection was rejected by the executing court against which an appeal was filed which was also dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition.

2.

In my opinion, the contention of the petitioner lacks merit. The application of the plaintiff rejecting the application for attachment of the property before the judgment, was an interlocutory order, which was passed during the pendency of the suit and would not operate as res judicata insofar as the execution of the decree is concerned.

3.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal and Others Vs. Sm. Deorajin Debi and Another, wherein the Court held that the principle of res judicata would apply between two stages in the same litigation and that a party could not be allowed to reagitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings.

4.

In my opinion, the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable. The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving finality to judicial decisions and the principle of res judicata is that the same matter should not be judged again and again. It primarily applies to the past litigation and future litigation on the same issue. In the present case, an interlocutory application for attachment before the judgment is not a decision which brings finality between the parties, which would operate as res judicata after the decree is passed by the trial court.

5.

In view of the aforesaid, this petition lacks merit, and is dismissed summarily.