YASHPAL Vs. BABU MANOHAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in revision here is to the permission granted to the respondent-plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

(2.) The facts relevant to this matter are that on 23.12.1988, a decree was granted by the Court at Dabwali in favour of the present petitioners, Yashpal and Bhim Sain. A suit was thereafter filed by their uncle Babu Manohar Sharma on 24.1.1989 seeking to challenge this decree. This suit was, however, withdrawn on 1.2.1989 but on the same day another suit was filed seeking the same relief, that is, setting aside of the decree obtained by the petitioners on 23.12.1989. This second suit too, was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.1.1990 and thereafter on fresh suit on the same cause of action was filed, this time at Bhatinda, on 11.1.1990. Before proceeding further it deserves mention that when the earlier suit was withdrawn on 1.2.1989, no permission had been sought or granted to the plaintiffs to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Such permission was, however, sought and granted when the subsequent suit was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn on 8.1.1990. The challenge now is to this permission being granted to the plaintiffs to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

(3.) On the face of it, would appear that once a suit had been dismissed as withdrawn without permission being granted for filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action, no second suit was competent and if at the time of withdrawal of the second suit, permission had been granted to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, such permission would be contrary to law. Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff Shri L.N. Verma, however, sought to contend that the Courts at Dabwali lacked territorial jurisdiction and thus, all the proceedings that were taken there were without jurisdiction. Counsel for the petitioners on the other hand countered this by the plea that all the parties to the suit were residents of Dabwali and further that a part of the cause of action arose there and thus, the Courts at Dabwali had the requisite jurisdiction. It is apparent, therefore, that this matter raises a disputed question of fact and it would not be appropriate to go into it in revision here.