Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) The only question that falls for consideration in this revision is whether the decision in a writ petition operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit filed on the same cause of action ?
(2.) This question emerges in the following circumstances- (a) The plaintiffs non-petitioner (for short the plaintiff), way back in the year 1980 instituted a suit against the defendant petitioner (for short the defendant) in the trial court seeking declaration that he he reinstated with all consequential benefits to the post of he held before termination as the order of termination was without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The defendant filed written statement raising certain preliminary objection which include the objection that suit was barred by the principles of res judicata as the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the suit were already declined by the High Court and the Supreme Court. (b) The trial court took twelve years time in framing the issues. Thereafter the defendant on October 8, 1994 moved an application for deciding the issues No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 as preliminary under Order 14 Rules 2 CPC. (c) the learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated April 6, 1995. Against this order that the action for filing the revision has been resorted to be the defendant.
(3.) Mr. Rastogi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has restricted his arguments only to the findings of issue No. 4 which relate to objection of res judicata.;