AKHIL DUTTA Vs. ANIL KUMAR DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order dated 26.9.96 passed by the learned District Judge/Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, in Civil Revision No. 1(T) of 1996 affirming the order dated 25.4.96 passed by the Asstt. to the Deputy Commissioner at Shillong in TS No. 1 of 1995 and Misc Case No.2(T) of 1995, thus dismissing the suit of the present petitioner (plaintiff), is the subject matter under challenge in this Revision petition under Rule 36-A of the Rules for Administration of Justice/Police in Khasi & Jaintia Hills, 1937.The facts of the case in a very short compass are as follows :-

(2.) The present petitioner, Shri Akhil Chandra Dutta as plaintiff, instituted a suit being Title Suit No.1 (T) of 1995 as against the present respondents as defendants and other two persons as proforma defendants in the Court of the Asstt. to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, for declaration of his right, title and interest in respect of undeclared half portion approximately, of Holding No.122 in Ward 4 of the Shillong Municipality covered by Patta dated 9.2.95 issued by Ka Twilsimai Lyngdoh of Lummawrie, Laitumkharah, Shillong and for recovery of possession thereof. The petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 1 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure under Misc. Case No.2 (T) of 1995 in the same Court. Initially, the learned Asstt. to the Deputy Commissioner, granted ad-interim temporary injunction to and in favour of the present petitioner (plaintiff) ex-parte vide, order dated 1.2.95 passed in Misc. Case No.2(T) of 1995 which was later on vacated by the Asstt. to the Deputy Commissioner under his order dated 25.4.96 consequent upon the dismissal of the main suit being TS No. 1 (T) 95. The dismissal of the main suit (TS No.1 (T) 95) was made by the Trial Court on the motion and on the basis of an application dated 15.5.95 filed by the defendant No.3, the respondent No.3 herein. In the said application dated 15-.5.95 presented by the defendant No.3/the respondent No.3 herein, in the connected main suit as well as Misc. Case No. 2(T)95 sought for dismissal of the suit by contending inter-alia, that the plaintiff, the petitioner herein, in violation of the order of the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 1732-33/84 dated 21.8.87, filed the said suit and obtained an ad-interim injunction order by mis-representing the facts; and that the plaintiff, by filing such a fresh suit on the same decided issues of the subject, committed a contempt of Court and that, the said suit should not have been filed in view of the judgment and order dated 2.6.83 passed by this Court in Civil Revn. No.40 (SH)78. The plaintiff-petitioner also resisted the said application of the defendant No.3 by filing show cause statement.

(3.) After hearing the parties on the said application dated 15.5.95, the Asstt. to the [Deputy Commissioner namely, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the said suit of the plaintiff- petitioner by holding, that the suit is barred by re-judicata under Section 11 CPC and the learned Trial Court was also of the view that the said suit cannot be tried again against the decision of the High Court and the Supreme Court.