AFTAB ALAM Vs. CHAMAAR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision under Sec. 115 of CPC has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 20/12/2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Patan, District Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2021, whereby the Court below has illegally rejected the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The Court has erroneously held that the principle of res judicata is inapplicable on the premise that the question of ownership of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 968 was not finally adjudicated in the earlier civil suit, Suit No. 137-A/2011, and therefore the subsequent civil suit is not barred.

(2.) Following prayed has been made by way of this revision petition:-

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed Civil Suit No. 21-A/2021 before the Civil Judge Class-I, Patan, District Durg (C.G.) seeking declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khasra Nos. 281/1 (0.23 ha.) and 968 (0.46 ha.), situated at Village Sipkona, asserting that his name is recorded in the revenue records and that he had purchased Khasra No. 968 through a registered sale deed dtd. 23/3/1988 from Shyamkishore Agrawal, after which mutation was carried out and he remained in peaceful possession until the petitioner/defendant allegedly encroached upon the land, as revealed during fresh demarcation proceedings; his application under Sec. 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code was rejected, giving rise to the cause of action for filing the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/defendant moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by res judicata in view of the earlier decision in Civil Suit No. 137-A/2011; however, the plaintiff filed objections and the trial Court, vide order dtd. 20/12/2022, rejected the petitioner's application holding that ownership of Khasra No. 968 was not decided earlier and therefore res judicata was not applicable, which order is impugned as being illegal, erroneous and contrary to law.