MANOJ Vs. DEVENDRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 24.8.2017 whereby the trial court decided issue Nos.3 and 6 in Original Suit No.657 of 2012. Issue No.3 was whether the suit is barred by principles of res judicata. Issue No.6 was whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of parties. Both the issues have been decided against the defendant-petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved by the decision of the trial court on issue No.3 filed Revision No.71 of 2017. It has been dismissed by impugned order dated 22.7.2019. Hence the instant petition.

(2.) The defendant-petitioners contested the suit interalia on the ground that the suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent is barred by principles of res judicata in as much as the previous suit bearing No.273 of 1990 instituted by petitioner No.1 against the plaintiff and two others was decided in terms of a compromise dated 6.9.1990. The contention of the petitioners was that the subject matter of the instant suit is the same and since the earlier suit already stands decided in terms of compromise, therefore, the subsequent suit is barred by Section 11 CPC.

(3.) The trial court rejected the contention raised in this regard by holding that the petitioners have failed to file the certified copy of the judgement of the previous suit; the parties in the two suits are different and that there is nothing on record to indicate that the instant suit is barred by principles of res judicata. The revisional court, placing reliance on judgements of the Supreme Court in Subba Rao vs Valluri Jagannadha, 1967 AIR(SC) 591, Sundara Bai vs. Devaji, 1954 AIR(SC) 82 and Baldevdas vs Filmisthan Distrubuters, 1970 AIR(SC) 406 held that the principles of res judicata do not apply to a consent decree. A consent decree is not a decision by the court and therefore, Section 11 is not attracted.