MINTU KARAR & ANR. Vs. LAXMI KANTA SENAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a plaintiff in Title Suit No. 94 of 2007. The plaintiff filed a suit against the opposite parties for eviction of licensee. The plaintiffs treated the defendant as licensee and the plaintiff in the said suit contended that by reason of revocation of licence, the opposite parties have no right to hold on to the property. The said suit was decreed on July 27, 2012 and an appeal preferred by the opposite parties was also dismissed and the appellate Court by a judgment and order dated November 29, 2013 affirmed the order passed by the Trial Court on July 27, 2012. The said decree has attained finality. Subsequently, the opposite parties filed a suit for permanent injunction. The said suit was registered as TS 4079 of 2014. At the time of institution of the suit the earlier suit was decreed. In the written-statement the defendant has taken a plea of res judicata. The same plea was reiterated in the additional written-statement filed by the petitioner.

(2.) During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the suit filed by the opposite party for permanent injunction, the opposite party alleged that he is the bona fide occupier in respect of the schedule property, which belongs to the proforma defendant i.e. elder sister of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was permitted to reside in the said property. The proforma defendant offered the opposite party to purchase the suit property and a 'Bainanama' was prepared in pursuance whereof the opposite party paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs only). The opposite party further contended that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 namely the plaintiffs in the other suit claiming to be the owners of the suit property and tried to grab the property in question by ousting the plaintiff.

(3.) During the course of trial, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code contending that the said suit is barred by law as according to the plaintiff the judgment and order passed in the earlier Title Suit which is binding upon the same parties, the issues raised in subsequent suit are gone into, adjudicated upon and conclusively decided.