- (1.) The instant appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 28.11.90, passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City Jaipur in Civil Appeal No. 10/89, whereby, the learned ADJ No. 1 Jaipur City, Jaipur affirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.4.89, passed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 3. Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 55/86.
(2.) The plaintiff-appellant filed the present suit for permanent injunction and declaration, in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (West), Jaipur City. Jaipur, making averments in his plaint that he was having a Thadi, bearing No. 21 near Kotwali, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur. It is averred in the plaint that the Thadi was allotted to the plaintiff-appellant and he was carrying on his business on the aforesaid Thadi and was regularly paling rent to the Municipal Council, Jaipur. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff-appellant was a member of Purusharthi Thadi Holder's Union (Regd.) Jaipur. But at the time of emergency in the year 1975, all the Thadis were removed and they were replaced at Indira Market, Jaipur. It is averred that in this regard the plaintiff-appellant deposited Rs. 3,500/- with the respondent No. 3 and got a receipt of the same. It was mentioned in the plaint that the respondent No. 3 in collusion with respondent No. 4, removed the original record of the Union, just to declare the respondent No. 4 as the owner of the said Thadi with the intention of allotment of a shop at Indira Market, Jaipur in favour of respondent No. 4. It is averred that a false document was also prepared in collusion with the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The respondent No. 4 with intention to cheat the plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit before the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur against him. It is averred in the plaint that defendant-respondent No. 4 dishonestly obtained a decree, on basis of a forged document, from the learned trial Court, in the previous suit on 18.6.75, against which the plaintiff- appellant filed an appeal which, too was dismissed on 29.10.85.
(3.) After service of summons the defendant-respondents filed written statement. An application was moved by the contesting respondent No. 4 before the trial Court that the instant suit was barred by principle of res judicata.;