S.D. Singh, J. - (1.) This appeal and the two connected appeals nos. 1549 and 1550 of 1958 arise out of execution proceedings in three different cases. The first appeals in all the three cases were decided by the Additional District Judge, Varanasi, under the same judgment.
(2.) Five different suits were filed against one Rochumal, two by Rochal Dass, one by Vasudeo and two by Jyoti Prasad for the recovery of different amounts. It was alleged that the North Eastern Railway owed some money to Rochumal and applications for attachment before judgment of the different amounts were made in all the five suits; and even attachment before judgment was made as prayed. The five suits were heard and decided by a single judgment. After these suits were decreed, applications for execution of those decrees were moved and the North Eastern Railway was required to deposit the amounts due under the five decrees in compliance with the attachment before judgment. The North Eastern Railway contested the applications on the ground that it had its own claim against Rochumal and was not, therefore, liable to pay any amount towards the five decrees. The objections being decided against the North Eastern Railway, the Union of India filed five appeals in respect of orders passed against it in the five execution cases. While these first appeals were still pending, the two appeals arising out of the execution applications of Jyoti Prasad abated as after his death, his legal representatives were not brought on record in time. When the other three appeals came up for hearing, it was contended before the Additional District Judge, who heard those appeals, that since the two appeals against Jyoti Prasad had abated, even the other three appeals would be barred by the principle of res judicata, and this contention somehow found favour with the Additional District Judge.
(3.) The Additional District Judge relied upon three decisions of this Court, Zaharia v. Dibia, VII A.L.J. 851 Dakhni Din v. Syed Ali Asghar, VII A.L.J. 995 and Balhari Pande v. Shiva Sampat Pande, XVIII A.L.J. 40 and they, along with some other decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of their contention that the principle of res judicata applies to the facts in these appeals.;