Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, defendant No.2 in the suit, filed a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 07.02.2014 passed by the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No.7363/2009. The suit was filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction. The trial court allowed the suit, rejecting the petitioner's plea of res judicata. The facts reveal that one Sri. Shankar sold the property to Smt. Sayeeda Fathima in 1996. The plaintiffs purchased the property from Fathima and continued as tenants under a rental agreement. An earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed due to lack of evidence. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a comprehensive suit for possession, permanent injunction, and declaration, which was allowed. The petitioner contended that the subsequent suit was barred by res judicata. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the earlier suit was dismissed for want of evidence, and the subsequent suit was based on a different cause of action, thus not barred by res judicata. The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Section 11 CPC - Dismissal of earlier suit for want of evidence does not bar a subsequent suit based on a different cause of action - The court held that the earlier suit was dismissed due to lack of materials, and the subsequent suit was comprehensive for declaration and possession, thus not barred by res judicata (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed by the respondents is barred by the principle of res judicata in view of the dismissal of an earlier suit?
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Res judicata
- Cause of action
- Dismissal of earlier suit not barring subsequent suit if based on different cause of action
