N AJIT KUMAR Vs. HANUMAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Nos. 572/2004 and 573/2004 are identical in nature and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the revision applications are that the plaintiff/revisionist instituted Civil Suit Nos. 58-B/01 and 57-B/01 claiming damages thereby for wrongful use and occupation of his property by the non-applicant. Civil Suit No. 58-B/01 (old Civil Suit No. 47-B/92) relates to the damages for the period from 2-9-89 to 15-7-92 amounting to Rs. 17,250/- and civil Suit No. 57-B/01 (old Civil Suit No. 47-B/95) relates to the damages for the period from 21-2-92 to 20-9-95 amounting to Rs. 18,000/ -. Prior to these suits, the plaintiff had instituted a suit for damages against the defendant/ non-applicant in the year 1985 for the wrongful use and occupation of the same premises. The damages claimed in the said suit relates to the period from 2-3-82 to 2-7-85. The earlier suit was dismissed on merits by the Court of Additional judge, Sihora, Camp Katni. First appeal preferred by the predecessor in title of the plaintiff is still pending before this Court as admitted by both the Counsels. It is stated at bar that the present revisionist had also filed a suit bearing Civil Suit no. 29-B/89 for possession and damages for the period from 2-9-86 to 1-9-89. It is further stated by the learned Counsel for non-applicant that Civil Suit No. 29-B/89 was dismissed on 24-1-2000 by the Court of Additional District Judge, katni and F. A. No. 290/2000 preferred against the same is still pending before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the non-applicant submits that the suits of the plaintiffs (58-B/01 and 57-B/01) are not maintainable on account of the dismissal of the earlier suit bearing Civil Suit No. 29-B/89. Learned Counsel for non-applicant further submits that the judgment of Civil Suit No. 29-B/89 contained a finding that the present revisionist is not the sole owner of the subject property. In view of this finding, learned Counsel for the non-applicant submits that the present suits, i. e. , Suit Nos. 58-B/01 and 57-B/01 are barred by virtue of Order 2 Rule 2, CPC, and also by virtue of constructive res judicata. Learned Counsel further submits that the possession was obtained by one of the co-owners of the property. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that the plaintiff is liable to be non-suited.