RANJEET KUMAR Vs. AMIT WALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the parties has already received a prima facie determination in terms of the Order passed by the learned Civil Judge rejecting the revisionist prayer for an injunction. It was held in the Order dated 24.7.2000 that the plaintiff had failed to prima facie disclose his title. THE learned Civil Judge permitted the respondent/defendant to construct a wall on a piece of land admeasuring 22 square yards which according to the Plaintiff/Revisionist was common land. THE learned Civil Judge directed that the Defendant/Respondent could construct a wall subject to his filing an undertaking to the effect that if the Court came to a contrary conclusion on the final determination of the suit, this wall would be removed. It is the common case of the parties that subsequent to the passing of these interim Orders by the learned Civil Judge in proceedings between the parties, the wall has been constructed. Approximately one month after the Order dated 24.7.2000 had been pronounced the fresh suit has been filed. Various Judgments have been cited by learned Counsel for the plaintiff/revisionist including Gargi Din Misra v. Debi Charan, AIR 1929 Allahabad 805, Narikkote Kunnamangalath Ittisseri Kuberan Nambudri v. Pothera Kalloor Koman Nair, 1925 Madras 574 (1) and Hathi Ram v. Hazi Mohammad, AIR 1954 Allahabad 141.

(2.) IN my view if the second Order continues, it shall amount to a fresh determination on all the questions pertaining to the strip of land admeasuring 22 square yards as also the construction of a wall by the defendant. Until these Orders are varied any fresh view, by a Court other than the one which orders permitting the construction, would directly defeat the interests of justice and the smooth functioning of the Court. Learned Counsel for the defendant has correctly drawn my attention to a decision of this Court in Laxmi Fruit Co. v. Gainda Ram and Co., 1983 DRJ (4) 221 which has clarified that even if the courses of action are different in two suits between the same parties, the subsequent suit can be stayed if the matter in both the suits is substantially identical. Avowedly, the cause of action of the two suits is different because the second suit flows from the Orders passed in the first suit. I find no jurisdictional error in the impugned Order. Revision Petition stands dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.