NIYATI GHOSH Vs. SUJIT BANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 27/1/2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Miscellaneous Appeal no. 178 of 2019.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are as follows :

(3.) Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants being Niyati and Mukti submits that Sujit himself chose to file the restitution application before the First Appellate Court prior to reversal of the decree and as such the said application could not have been an application for restitution and the same was in fact an application under Sec. 151 of the Code. While disposing of the said application the concerned Court came to a categoric finding that Mukti was the actual tenant of the shop room and such finding binds the parties to the proceeding. Law is well-settled that even if erroneous, an inter party judgment binds the parties if the Court of competent jurisdiction had decided the lis. In view thereof, the learned Court erred in law in allowing the restitution application filed by Sujit. In support of such argument reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Gorie Gouri Naidu (Minor) and another -vs- Thandrothu Bodemma and others, reported in AIR 1997 SCC 808.