- (1.)Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)Respondents are the owners and landlords of the suit premises. Applicant's father was their employee and he was allowed to occupy the suit premises by reason of his employment with them. After the death of applicant's father, the applicant was allowed to occupy the premises for some time on compassionate ground but as he failed to vacate the premises the respondents filed a suit for possession. The applicant appeared in the Court and resisted the suit by filing of a written statement. He inter alia contended that respondents had previously filed a suit bearing RCS No. 632 of 1988 for possession against the father of the respondent for eviction on the same grounds. That suit was dismissed in default of appearance of the parties. Therefore, the present suit which was a second suit filed on the same cause was not maintainable and was barred by Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.)In the suit, the applicant made an application for framing a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit. Accordingly, the Court framed the preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit. After hearing the parties, the Court held that the second suit was maintainable and was not barred. Aggrieved by the decision, the applicant has approached this Court in revision.