SATYA PRAKASH Vs. XII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE earlier Counsel for the respondent No. 3 having been elevated to the bench notices were issued under the High Court Rules to the respondent No. 3 in 1999 for engaging another Counsel. Even though notice was deemed sufficient, in view of the office report dated 10th July, 2003, none has appeared for the respondent No. 3 even in the revised list. Thus, there is no option for the Court but to proceed with the hearing of the case, since the matter is about 20 years old.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the suit of respondent No. 3 was hit by the principles of res judicata and in fact the entire exercise was an abuse of process of the Court. He has also urged that the finding of the appellate Court that Nagar Mahapalika, Agra was claiming the title over the disputed land which was totally a farce, in view of the fact that the claim of Nagar Mahapalika had also been rejected in the first suit filed by the petitioner. From a perusal of the judgments dated 8-4-1980 and 23-5-1981, it is evident that the respondent No. 3 has been set up to some how secure possession in favour of the firm against which a decree is operating. In my view the second submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is well founded that the second suit is barred by principles of res judicata. THE finding of the lower appellate Court with regard to prima facie case was totally erroneous. It has not been denied that the decree has become final and in fact the respondent No. 3 was never a tenant. THE contention with regard to the open piece of land and Chabutra has already been dealt in detailed in the earlier suit in the appellate order dated 17-10-1980. THErefore, both the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are well founded and have to be accepted.