KAJA MOHINDEEN Vs. RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in O.S. No. 262 of 2006, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pudukkottai, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed O.S. No. 262 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pudukkottai, for declaring that the first plaintiff is the tenant under the defendant based on the oral agreement for the vacant site and for injunction. The revision petitioner disputed the claim of the respondents herein stating that already R.C.O.P. No. 25 of 2004 was filed by the revision petitioner against the father of the respondents herein for eviction of the suit property and eviction was already ordered in R.C.O.P. No. 25 of 2004 and he also filed the Execution Application to evict the respondents and at that time, the suit is filed. The revision petitioner also filed LA. No. 139 of 2008 in O.S. No. 262 of 2006 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint in O.S. No. 262 of 2006 stating that the suit is barred by res judicata and estopel and against the father of the respondents, R.C.O.P. No. 25 of 2004 was filed and it was ordered in favour of the revision petitioner and he also filed E.P. No. 49 of 2006 to execute the eviction order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 25 of 2004 and at that time, the suit was filed and therefore, the suit has to be rejected.

(3.) The respondents herein filed the written statement that the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be maintained and the trial of the suit has already commenced and the case was adjourned for the cross-examination of P.W.I and at this stage, the application is not maintainable. It was further contended that there is no res judicata or estopel and the respondents are not parties in R.C.O.P. No. 25 of 2004 and the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 25 of 2004 is not binding on them. The lower Court dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner that question of res judicata cannot be gone into at that stage and the respondents/the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 262 of 2006 are not parties in R.C.O.P. No. 25 of 2004 and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. Aggrieved against the same, this civil revision petition is filed.