DAYARAM RAGHOBAJI BELSARE Vs. VISHRANTIBAI GEORGE LAVET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE finding recorded by the Civil Judge, Ramtek on 20th April 1988 in Regular Civil Suit No. 168 of 1985 holding that the plaintiff is not estopped from presenting Regular Civil Suit No. 168 of 1985 in spite of the withdrawal of the Regular Civil Suit No. 52 of 1985 is a subject -matter of challenge in this revision.

(2.) THE controversy in the present litigation covers a very narrow compass. Before proceeding to the legal aspect, the factual position has to be seen. The plaintiff Vishrantibai Lavet was a tenant in respect of the suit premises and the defendant Dayaram was the landlord. The plaintiff was running her dispensary in the suit premises. The plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 52 of 1985 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ramtek against the defendant Dayaram. The suit was for injunction. It was the contention of the plaintiff in that suit that though she was in possession of the suit tenements and was running her dispensary therein, the defendant broke open the lock of her dispensary and was threatening her possession. The cause of action for this suit, according to her, arose on 22 -3 -1985 when the defendant broke open her lock of the suit premises and thereafter from time to time when the defendant threatened the plaintiffs possession over the suit premises. On these allegations the permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit premises was sought. This suit was filed on 28 -3 -1985.

(3.) BEFORE this order came to be passed, the plaintiff filed a fresh suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 168 of 1985 (giving rise to this revision). This suit was filed on 19 -9 -1985 for possession and general damages. Paragraph 4 of the plaint reads as follows :