ASHOK BHAURAO SARDAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard submissions at the bar.

(2.) The Petitioner was facing the eviction proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent no.4/Trust to evict the petitioner from the agricultural land bearing Survey No.52/2, Gat No.10, admeasuring 3 Hectares, 76 R situated at Mouza Sukali, Tq. Daryapur, District Amravati the land owned by the Trust. The proceedings were dismissed on 15.7.2002. As the Trust did not apply for restoration, the dismissal order had attained finality. The Trust filed fresh eviction proceedings being Tenancy Case No.59/27/Sukali/3/20092010 under Section 120C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the BTAL Act") on the same grounds as in earlier eviction case. Respondent no.2, despite this objection, decided the case on merits and allowed the case for summary eviction. The petitioner had challenged the order in Revision No.Ten/B/78/2012. The revision was dismissed by the Maharshtra Revenue Tribunal by judgment, dated 8.1.2014.

(3.) The question posed is as to whether the suit dismissed on the ground of default in appearance of the plaintiff bars a fresh suit on the same cause of action in view of the Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question was under consideration of learned Single Judge of this Court in the ruling Premachand Lakhanji Jain vs. Smt. Lilabai Krishnath Surve, 1998 3 MhLJ 252. In that Civil Revision application, suit was dismissed for default in terms of the Order IX, Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code and it was held that respondent no.1 was not entitled to file fresh suit on the same cause of action, it being for the same relief, taking shelter of Order IX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.