Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GIAN CHAND versus THAKARDWARE DWARKADHISH MAROOF BABA SANT

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gian Chand v. Thakardware Dwarkadhish maroof Baba Sant - CR-1718-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 311 (24 January 2006)

CR No. 1718 of 2004 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.1718 of 2004

Date of Decision: 8.02.2006

Gian Chand ..Petitioner.

Vs.

Thakardware Dwarkadhish maroof Baba Santosh Dass Dera Sangrur.

..Respondents.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr.Baljit Puri, Advocate,

for the respondent.

ORDER

The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 23.1.2005 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the application of the petitioners-defendants for permitting to treat Issue No.3-C as preliminary issue was declined. Subsequently, application for CR No. 1718 of 2004 (2)

review of the said order was also declined by the learned Trial Court on 1.11.2003.

It is the categoric case of the petitioner that earlier the plaintiffs have filed a Civil Suit No. 80 of 30.10.1968 against the defendants who were also the defendants in the previous suit on the similar grounds. Said suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court and such decree was affirmed by this Court in second appeal as well. After dismissal of the said suit, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit without disclosing the decision of the first suit but on an objection raised by the defendants, the plaintiffs have alleged that the said suit was filed in connivance with the officer bearers of the plaintiffs with the defendants.

The question whether the present suit is barred by res judicata would be relevant issue in view of the fact that the previous judgment and decree is in respect of the similar subject-matter. The only factor which may be relevant is whether the office bearers of the plaintiffs have connived with the defendants and if so the consequences thereof. Therefore, it would be appropriate if Issue No. 3-C should be treated as a preliminary issue which will avoid unnecessary burden of adducing the evidence to be produced by the parties on the remaining issues, since such issues have already been adjudicated upon earlier.

CR No. 1718 of 2004 (3)

In view thereof, the impugned order dated 23.1.2002 passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside permitting Issue No.3-C to be treated as preliminary issue to be decided the same in accordance with the law. The revision petition is allowed.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 17.3.2006.

(Hemant Gupta)

8.02.2006 Judge

rp


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.