FIKSON TRADING COMPANY Vs. QAMARUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Fikson Trading Company was plaintiff in a suit instituted by it in the Court of a Subordinate Judge 1st Class Delhi seeking a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was owner of the plot in dispute and that the defendant had no title to or interest therein. It was alleged that the plaintiff was in possession of the plot in dispute in its own right-and had put up strnctures upon it at its own expense and that.the defendant-respondent was wrongly alleging that he was the owner of the superstructures and bad let out the premises to the plaintiff.

(2.) It appears that before the plaintiff brought its suit, the defendant had instituted a suit against it in the Court of Small Causes Delhi for recovery of Rs. 350.00on account of arrears of rent in respect of the property in dispute. The defendant therefore, while denying the plaintiff's claim in the suit for declaration, raised a preliminary objection and alleged that the suit was liable to be stayed under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant's objection prevailed and the learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated 2nd November, 1966 stayed the suit of the plaintiff.

(3.) I he present revision petition is directed against the said older of the learned Subordinate Judge. Before me Mr. Vijav Kishan, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a large number of case 1916 Allahabad 26), Champat v. Toti Rnm, Mayat Mohammad v. Bar Gaushala Ltd. Lyapur, Puvvada Srtyanarayanamatihy v. Gadepalli Sundara Rao, Mohd. Yusuf v. Abdul Wahid and others, Pateswari Parshad Singh v. A. S. Gilan, Ram Narain v. Ram Sarup. In all these cases it has been held that an incidental determination of an issue of title in a suit for rent of the nature cognizable in a Court of Small Causes does not finally estop the parties to such suit from raising the same issue in a suit brought to try the title. The submission made by the learned counsel is that a plea of res judicata on general principles, can be successfully taken in respect of judgments of Courts of exculsive jurisdiction but a Court of Small Causes cannot be regarded as one having exculsive jurisdiction to decide a particular matter. In as much as the question of title could not be decided by the Court of Small Causes Delhi a judgment rendered by it would not operate as res-judicata in the title suit brought by the petitioner. The matter in issue in the suit instituted by the petitioner would therefore not a directly and substantially in issue in the suit instituted in the Court of Small Causes. In the circumstancas, the learned Subordinate judge had acted illegally or with matelial irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in staying the petitioner's suit.