ARUN VIJAY SATI Vs. DINESH CHANDRA THAPLIYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision has been preferred against the order dtd. 12/3/2020, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pauri Garhwal in Original Suit No.01 of 2017, "Dinesh Chandra Thapliyal and Others vs. Ramesh Chandra Thapliyal and Others", whereby the application, filed by the revisionist " defendant to dismiss the suit in view of Sec. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been dismissed.

(2.) Heard Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vivek Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2.

(3.) Admittedly, two previous suits between the parties were decided on merit by the competent court. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the property of the present suit and the property of the Original Suit No.41 of 1992 are the same. Therefore, the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata. On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the said submissions and submitted that the property in-question of the present suit and the suit property of Original Suit No.41 of 1992 are different, because the proforma respondent no.3 - defendant had transferred eighty two square meter land to the revisionist, whereas, the share of the proforma respondent " defendant was only nineteen square meter. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist replied that in the said Original Suit No.41 of 1992, the properties were partitioned and the proforma respondent " defendant was declared the owner of the land of eighty two square meter. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist argued that the revisionist is purchaser and he had purchased the property in-question from the proforma respondent no.3 " Ramesh Chandra Thapliyal and according to the respondent no.3 " defendant Ramesh Chandra Thapliyal, he had transferred his share i.e. eighty two square meter land as divided in the Original Suit No.41 of 1992 and the proforma respondent " defendant was the sole owner of the land measuring 82 square meter.