FRANCIS KOIL RAJ Vs. MANGALAM KARUNAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 01.10.2007 passed by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.12455 of 2007 in O.S.No,504 of 2001, the defendant has preferred this civil revision petition.

(2.) NIGGARD and bereft of details, pithily and precisely, the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision would run thus: The respondent/plaintiff herein filed the suit O.S.No,504 of 2001 seeking the following relief:

(3.) IT is a common or garden principle of law that the plea of res judicata has to be proved by the person, who is pressing into service that plea. The issues framed and the adjudication thereon should be considered and see as to whether in the subsequent suit, the issues involved are substantially the same and for that purpose, the defendant should have prayed the court to frame necessary issue relating to res judicata and it got to be decided on merits. However, invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in my considered opinion, was not a proper course. The lower court also has not in any way expressed its opinion that the plea of res judicata is not applicable to this case. IT is for the revision petitioner to highlight the necessary facts as per Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure under the issue relating to res judicata and get an adjudication thereon.