FARZANA BEGUM Vs. INDER KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a review petition against the judgment and decree dated 01-02-2017, passed by this court, whereby appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 14-07-2003, passed by XV Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No.94A/2002 has been affirmed, whereby the trial court has dismissed the suit on the ground of maintainability of suit and res-judicata.

(2.) The counsel for the applicant has sought review of the said judgment and decree on the ground that while dismissing the appeal, this court has failed to take into consideration the certain facts and law governing the issues involved in the appeal and the trial court as well as this court erred in dismissing the suit and appeal on the ground of maintainability and Doctrine of res-judicata. The main plank of the submission is that the judgment and decree passed in the previous suit could not have been a basis for holding that the present suit is not maintainable and barred by Doctrine of Res-judicate. He has submitted that the said judgment was only Per Curium.

(3.) In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this court has failed to take into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rattiram and others Vs. State of M.P. Through Inspector of Police, 2012 AIR(SC) 1485 and , Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of M.P. And another, 2011 AIR(SC) 1989 which has laid down the law on the subject matter by Per Curium Doctrine and which the finding rendered in Second Appeal in para 25 of the judgment is Per Curium Doctrine. It is further submitted that the court has further failed to take into consideration paras 18 and 19 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Manik Lal Banerjee, 2006 AIR(SC) 2844. It has further been submitted that the courts below has erroneously dismissed the suit on applying the principles of res-judicata and this court also erred by dismissing the appeal without taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Y. Satyanarayan Reddy Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, 2010 AIR(SC) 1440, whereby it has been held that the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in limine does not mean with the reasoning of the judgment of the High Court, against which Special Leave Petition is filed has also been affirmed and the Doctrine of Per Curium does not apply in such cases. He also contended that the findings by the trial court and by this court in the first appeal with regard to the Doctrine of res-judicata is also contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case Most.Rev.P.M.A. Metropolitiam and others etc. Vs. Moran Mar Marthoma and another etc., 1995 AIR(SC) 2001. He also contended that previously suit filed by one of the co-owner under the Special Provisions of Section 23-A was erroneously dismissed as the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and and the Land Act are complete Code itself and the decree of the civil suit would not have barred the said application. It is also contended that the suit was filed under Section 21(f) of the Rent Act cum title to the status of Inder Kumar Jain, who had purchased 1/16 undivided share of the suit house and therefore, this court has failed to take into consideration the judgment passed by this court in the case of Ramdayal Vs. Manaklal, 1973 MPLJ 650.