(1.) The question arising in the above case is as to whether the liberty granted to file a fresh suit by the High Court would enable the party to revive a cause of action and save limitation, so as to enable raking up all grounds earlier raised and rejected by concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, affirmed by the High Court in Second Appeal.
(2.) We heard Mr. Raghavendra Srivatsa, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Advocate appearing for respondent No.1.
(3.) The original plaintiff, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein admittedly entered into an agreement for sale of the suit scheduled property to the first defendant, a Cooperative Society. It is also admitted that a Power of Attorney (PoA) was executed in favour of the second defendant, the Secretary of the first defendant. It is alleged that the PoA was executed on coercion and misrepresentation, which also stood cancelled before the execution of the sale deed in favour of the first defendant by the second defendant, by virtue of the PoA. Admittedly, the plaintiff first filed a suit for permanent injunction against the second defendant, impleaded in his capacity as the Secretary of the Society, for a permanent injunction from alienating or disposing off the plots comprised in the suit scheduled property and from making any constructions thereon. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court confirmed by the First Appellate Court against which the plaintiff approached the High Court in the second appeal. The second appeal stood allowed upon which the Society filed an SLP before this Court in which leave was granted and the Civil Appeal was allowed as per Annexure P/9, remanding the matter to the High Court by Annexure P/10.