RAM NARESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -It appears from the perusal of the case that a minor civil dispute conflagrated into a long drawn battle between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The dispute allegedly arose with the interference of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the quotidian activities of the petitioner of his vocation of keeping Ghat at Sangam in Allahabad which according to the petitioner dates back to 1954 and even earlier. To begin with, the petitioner instituted Suit No. 8 of 1967 in the Court of Munsif West, Allahabad for the relief of declaration that he was entitled to carry on his activities of facilitating bathing at the sacred confluence of Triveni and receiving offerings and daan (gift) from the pilgrims as this vocation was the only source to eke out a living for himself and for his family. The respondents who were arrayed as defendants in the suit, entered appearance and filed written statement in which they denied the rights of plaintiff of running ghat at the Sangam-confluence of Ganga and Jamuna. They also denied that petitioner was one of the ghatias or does he have any right to keep or run the ghat at the place. It was also alleged that the plaintiff was a resident of District Pratapgarh and had been in the employ of pandas and ghatias and as such, he was not entitled to hoist any flag or receive any alms or offerings from the pilgrims visiting the Sangam. The suit filed by the petitioner as plaintiff culminated in being decreed vide judgment and decree dated 3.5.1969. The operative portion of the judgment is excerpted below : "Plaintiff's suit for declaration that he is entitled to keep his ghat in Sangam area and injunction against defendants not to disturb the plaintiff in his profession to receive alms and Dans prayed in reliefs is decreed with costs." Consequent First Appeals i.e., Nos. 146 and 148 of 1969 and Second Appeal No. 1413 of 1973 preferred against the decree ended up in dismissal vide judgments dated 27.3.1973 and 13.2.1981, respectively. The aforesaid pronouncements in the judicial hierarchy did not give quietus to the dispute. Ram Chandra Misra arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the instant petition, who is now represented by his heirs namely respondent Nos. 4/1 to 4/9, began a second inning by Instituting Suit No. 837 of 1978 in which the relief claimed was for declaration that the plaintiff of the suit alone had a right to keep/run the ghat comprising 12 wooden takhats and Calf (bachhia) for Gaudan in the frontline in the bathing area through the year especially during Magh Mela and was further entitled to observe and conduct Ganga Puja for Magh Mela, Tahsil Allahabad. The petitioner sought his impleadment by moving an application and he was thus impleaded as defendant No. 5 in the said suit. In the written statement filed by the petitioner as respondent No. 5 in the said suit, claim of the plaintiff respondent No. 4 was refuted at the same time, raising the plea of suit being barred by res judicata. The suit came to be heard by 8th Additional Munsif, Allahabad, who by means of the order dated 26.5.1996 dismissed the suit as being barred by res judicata. The dismissal of the suit led the plaintiff respondent No. 4 to prefer a revision, which climaxed with a verdict that the suit was not barred by res judicata. The petitioner who was defendant in the suit, invoked the procedure of this Court by filing a writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 14534 of 1983. This Court while deciding the writ petition, quashed the order dated 10.5.1983 and relegated the matter to the revisional court for decision afresh in accordance with law and in the light of observations made in the body of judgment. The precise and relevant observation made by the Court in the aforestated writ petition is quoted below : "In the perspective to the above discussion, it is evident from the judgment of the revisional Court that it has not considered the question of res judicata in the light of Explanation IV of Section 11, C.P.C. Before holding that the suit was not barred by res judicata, it was incumbent upon the revisional court to have considered as to whether Explanation IV was or was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, at this stage, I would like to refrain myself from expressing any opinion on the question as to whether Explanation IV of Section 11, C.P.C. was or was not attracted as I think it proper to quash the impugned order and remand the matter directing the revisional court to decide afresh the question of res judicata in the light of Explanation IV of Section 11, C.P.C." The revisional court by its judgment and order dated 22.12.1993, allowed the revision and set aside the order of Munsif and held the suit not hit by the principles of res judicata. It is this order of the revisional court dated 22.12.1993 passed by IX Additional District Judge, Allahabad, which is the subject matter of impungment in the instant petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. S. Diwakar assisted by Sri D. K. Srivastava appearing on behalf of the plaintiff respondents at prolix length.

(3.) BEFORE coming to grips with the controversy involved in this petition, provisions of Section 11, Explanation IV of the C.P.C. sufficient to appreciate the controversy should be considered. Section 11 of the C.P.C. and Explanation IV thereto is quoted below :