SATHYANATH Vs. SAROJAMANI
LAWS(SC)-2022-5-27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
May 06,2022
Sathyanath
Appellant
VERSUS
Sarojamani
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MAJOR S S KHANNA IN BOTH THE APPEALS VS. BRIG F J DILLON IN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]MAJOR S S KHANNA IN BOTH THE APPEALS VS. BRIG F J DILLON IN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR SEN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SHAMLAL MURARI [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM DASS VS. DOMINION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAHMAN VS. PRASONY BAI [REFERRED TO]
S AMARJIT SINGH KALRA VS. PRAMOD GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH VS. NANHKU [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH B DESAI VS. BIPIN VADILAL MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
A. SHANMUGAM VS. ARIYA KSHATRIYA RAJAKULA VAMSATHU MADALAYA NANDHAVANA PARIPALANAI SANGAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ETC [REFERRED TO]
SUNNI CENTRAL WAQF BOARD VS. GOPAL SINGH VISHRAD [REFERRED TO]
ARUNA KUMARI VS. AJAY KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
PITHVI RAJ JHINGTA VS. GOPAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
USHA SALES LIMITED VS. MALCOLM GOMES [REFERRED TO]
DHIRENDRANATH CHANDRA VS. APURBA KRISHNA CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
HARDWARI LAL VS. POKHAR MAL [REFERRED TO]
SUGANDHI (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ORS. VS. P. RAJKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
SRIHARI HANUMANDAS TOTALA VS. HEMANT VITHAL KAMAT [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
LEELABAI VS. UMABAI [LAWS(MPH)-2025-1-46] [REFERRED TO]KRISHNAPPA VS. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KAR)-2025-3-99] [REFERRED TO]
KANDREGULA RAMA BABU VS. KONDAPALLI VENKATA LAKSHMI [LAWS(APH)-2024-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
KARUMURI VENKATA LAXMI NARASIMHAM VS. DEVATHA NAGABHUSHANAM [LAWS(APH)-2024-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAKARAN VS. LALITHA NEELAKANDAN [LAWS(KER)-2023-12-186] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH LATH VS. RAJ KUMAR LATH [LAWS(PAT)-2024-3-66] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. SABIR KURAISHI VS. MOHD. SADIK KURAISHI [LAWS(CHH)-2023-3-102] [REFERRED TO]
DARSH AMITBHAI SHETH VS. NIRMAL PRITIBEN TAILOR [LAWS(GJH)-2023-4-138] [REFERRED TO]
USHA RAI VS. SANSKRIT PATHSHALA SAMITI [LAWS(MPH)-2023-8-154] [REFERRED TO]
DESERVE EXIM PVT. LTD VS. YES BANK LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2022-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
MESSERS BINAGURI INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VS. GOUTAM ROY [LAWS(CAL)-2024-4-163] [REFERRED TO]
PARESHBHAI MAHENDRABHAI PATEL VS. BHANUPRASAD BHIKHUBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2024-4-163] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVESH NARESHCHANDRA AMIN VS. DILIPBHAI BHAKTIPRASAD DOSHI [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-464] [REFERRED TO]
AZMATH JAHAN VS. M. VENKATESHWARLU [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-7-78] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN AGRAWAL VS. MANOHAR PATEL [LAWS(CHH)-2024-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
HEMANT GUPTA,J. -
(1.)The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dtd. 3/9/2021 whereby in the revision petition filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the trial court was directed to frame preliminary issue as to whether the suit is barred by res judicata.
(2.)The plaintiffs-appellants filed O.S. No. 95 of 2016 against the respondent, their paternal aunt. The appellants claimed a declaration for declaring the appellants as absolute owners of the suit property, judgment and decree in O.S. No. 65 of 2003 as null and void, and, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and their agents in disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the appellants in any manner. Initially, the defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (For short, the 'Code') for rejection of the plaint but the same was dismissed by the trial court on 20/6/2017. It is thereafter, the defendant filed an application to frame issues under Order XIV Rule 2(2) of the Code to treat the following as the preliminary issues:
"1. Whether the suit is not hit by resjudicata and estoppel as claimed by the defendant in the written statement in Para- I 0 and 11.
2. Whether the suit is not hit by resjudicata and estoppel as claimed by the defendant in the written statement in Para-12.
3. Whether the suit is not barred by limitation as contented by the defendant in the written statement in Para-13.
4. Whether the Plaintiffs have deliberately and wantonly abused the process of the court, as contented by the defendant in the written statement in Para-15 and 16.
5. Whether the suit is not valued properly and court fee paid is deficient as claimed by the defendant in Para 18 of the Written statement."
(3.)The learned trial court dismissed the application of the defendant on 3/10/2019. Such order of the learned trial court was challenged in revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the High Court ordered the framing of issue of res judicata as preliminary issue.
(2.)The plaintiffs-appellants filed O.S. No. 95 of 2016 against the respondent, their paternal aunt. The appellants claimed a declaration for declaring the appellants as absolute owners of the suit property, judgment and decree in O.S. No. 65 of 2003 as null and void, and, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and their agents in disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the appellants in any manner. Initially, the defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (For short, the 'Code') for rejection of the plaint but the same was dismissed by the trial court on 20/6/2017. It is thereafter, the defendant filed an application to frame issues under Order XIV Rule 2(2) of the Code to treat the following as the preliminary issues:
"1. Whether the suit is not hit by resjudicata and estoppel as claimed by the defendant in the written statement in Para- I 0 and 11.
2. Whether the suit is not hit by resjudicata and estoppel as claimed by the defendant in the written statement in Para-12.
3. Whether the suit is not barred by limitation as contented by the defendant in the written statement in Para-13.
4. Whether the Plaintiffs have deliberately and wantonly abused the process of the court, as contented by the defendant in the written statement in Para-15 and 16.
5. Whether the suit is not valued properly and court fee paid is deficient as claimed by the defendant in Para 18 of the Written statement."
(3.)The learned trial court dismissed the application of the defendant on 3/10/2019. Such order of the learned trial court was challenged in revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the High Court ordered the framing of issue of res judicata as preliminary issue.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.