Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT appeal has been filed by plaintiff - appellant assailing judgment & decrees of learned trial Judge and also of learned first appellate court.
(2.) SINCE both the courts have decided against him, it is relevant to observe that earlier respondent Sohan Lal filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction. After service was duly effected upon present appellant, learned trial Judge decreed the suit vide judgment & decree dated 27th September, 1995: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT COMITTED]... Against the said judgment & decree, present appellant initially filed application Under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the ex -parte decree passed in favour of respondent -Sohanlal which was dismissed by learned trial Judge against which he preferred appeal that too was dismissed after giving opportunity of hearing to him. After the judgment & decree dated 27th September, 1995 passed in favour of Sohan Lal, who is respondent in the instant case, has attained finality, the appellant filed a fresh suit for cancellation of decree and making ancillary prayers. The objection was raised that grievance which the appellant has raised once attained finality after due adjudication, the instant suit is barred by principles of res judicata in view of Section 11 of the Code. The objection was upheld and suit was dismissed by learned trial Judge vide judgment and decree dated 11th March, 2003 against which he preferred appeal that too has also been dismissed and plea of res judicata has also been upheld by the first appellate court as well.
(3.) COUNSEL for appellant submits that even after his application Under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is rejected and appeal has also been dismissed, still he has a right to raise grievance by filing a separate suit and with the assistance of counsel. This Court has also gone through the relief which the appellant has prayed in the instant suit.;