CHAUHAN, J. - (1.)INSTANT revision has been filed against the order dated 14. 3. 2002, by which the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code"), observing that copy of the judgment and order dated 18. 1. 2002, in the suit between the non-petitioner and some other tenant, wherein it had been held that the need of the non-petitioner was not bonafide, is not admissible in evidence.
(2.)THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the non-petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner-defendant on various grounds including the ground of his bonafide need. Non-petitioner/plaintiff had also field a suit against some other tenant on the same ground, including the ground of bonafide need, which stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18. 1. 2000, holding that the non-petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove the requirement of bonafide need. Petitioner filed an application to take the copy of that judgment dated 18. 11. 2000 on record submitting that such a judgment, though not inter-party, was admissible in evidence, in view of the provisions of Section 13 read with Sections 41 to 43 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, "the Act" ). THE said application has been rejected. Hence, this revision.
The provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the Act make it clear that if a judgment of the court is a judgment in rem, it is binding in subsequent proceedings on that issue though the parties may not be same. But if it is a judgment in personam, it does not have any binding effect in subsequent proceedings. This issue was considered by the Privy Council in Mahomed Saddique Yousuf vs. Official Assignee of Calcutta (1), wherein it was held that in proceedings of insolvency, an order passed on adjudication is of a binding nature being a judgment in rem and a person, who may not be a party in the insolvency proceedings, cannot challenge the said order for the reason that the order of adjudication was conclusive in nature and cannot be disputed.

In Surinder Kumar & Ors. vs. Gyan Chand & Ors. (2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that probate of the Will operates as a judgment in rem, therefore, the objection that the parties in any subsequent proceedings were not parties to it, is not sustainable because of the nature of the judgment.

In Smt. Satya vs. Teja Singh (3), the Supreme Court observed as under:- " Section 41 of the Indian Evidence act provides, to the extent material, that a final judgment of the competent court, in the exercise of matrimonial jurisdiction, is conclusive proof that a legal character, which it confers or takes away, accrued or ceased at he time declared in the judgment for that purpose. But the judgment has to be of a competent Court, i. e. a court having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Even a judgment in rem is, therefore, open to attack on the ground that the Court, which gave it, had no jurisdiction to do so. "

While deciding the said case, the Apex Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in R. Viswanathan vs. Rukn-Ul-Mulk Syed Abkdul Majid

(3.)IN Anil Behari Ghosh vs. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi (5), the Supreme Court considered a case: whether previous judgment of a criminal Court, convicting the son of the testator for murder, can have relevancy in the subsequent proceedings for revocation of grant of probate under the provisions of Section 43 of the Act. the Court held that where, in a proceeding for revocation of grant of probate under Section 263 of the INdian Succession act, the question is: whether the son of the testator murdered him, it cannot be assumed, on the basis of a previous judgment of a criminal court convicting the son for murder of his father and sentencing him for the same that the son was the murderer of the testator, for the reason that the judgment of the criminal court is relevant only to show that there was such a trial resulting in the conviction and sentence of the son, but it cannot be the evidence of the fact that the son was the murderer of the testator and that question is to be decided on evidence in the pending proceedings.
In M/s. Karam Chand Ganga Prasad & Anr. vs. Union of India (6), the Supreme Court held that the decisions of the civil court are binding on criminal courts but converse is not true, though the cases in civil and criminal courts may be between the same parties.

In S. M. Jakati & Anr. vs. S. M. Borkar & Ors. (7), the Supreme Court held that any opinion given in the order by the Authority as to the nature of the liability of `a', could not be used as evidence in the other proceedings to determine whether the debt was falling within a particular category or "avyavaharik" or otherwise, for the reason that the order was not admissible to prove the truth of facts therein stated and except that it may be relevant to prove the existence of the judgment itself, it would not be admissible in evidence.