HINDUSTAN TWYFORDS Vs. DAULAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE nine revisions (Civil Revisions Nos. 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645 and 646 of 1963) involve the same question and therefore are being disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) THE revision (Civil Revision No. 638 of 1963) is directed against an interlocutory order of the learned subordinate Judge IVth Class Rohtak rejecting the plea of res judicata based on an order learned single Judge of this Court in a writ petition field by a number of petitioner s who are now plaintiffs in the nine suits out of which these revision have arisen.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court has no writ decided all the matter in controversy in the present suit and therefore under the general rule of res judicata the suit cannot proceed and the trial Court should be held to be acting without jurisdiction in the contention t is necessary to observe that certain land was sought to be acquired by the Government under the Land acquisition Act and the petitioners came to this Court under Article 226 of the constitution assailing the acquisition as being not for a public purpose but for the purpose but for the private purpose of a company a learned Single Judge of this court rejected the petition. The real basis of the decision as it appears to me I is contained in the following observations: