GITA RAM KALSI Vs. S PRITHVI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises the question whether a person who is merely a formal party to an action and against whom no relief is claimed is bound by or entitled to the benefits of the rules of 'res judicata'?

(2.) The facts of the case are simple and not in dispute. On 22-8-1945 one Geeta Ram brought a suit against S. Arjan Singh defendant 1 for a mandatory injunction restraining him from putting up any structure on a courtyard belonging jointly to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 and requiring him to demolish any structure which had already been constructed. Defendants 1 to 7 were impleaded as defendants but relief was claimed only against defendant 1 and none against defendants 2 to 7. Defendants 2 to 7 failed to appear in Court and 'ex parte' proceedings were taken against them. On 18-6-1947 the trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff, the relevant portion of which is in the following terms:-

(3.) The decision of the question as to who are parties to a particular suit is not always free from difficulty. Ordinarily a judgment rendered in a particular case affects only those who are parties to the suit or are in privity with the parties, for a judgment cannot be allowed to operate to the detriment of a stranger. 'Prima facie' the parties to a judgment include persons who are named as such in the record but this general statement is subject to certain well-recognised exceptions. The first is that not only should a person's name appear in the record at a party but that it should appear on the record at the time of the rendition of a valid judgment 'Gobind Chunder v. Taruck Chunder', 3 Cal 145 (FB) (A); 'Kalee Coomar Dutt v. Fran Kishore', 18 Suth WR 29 (B). The second is that there must be not only an Identity of parties but an identity in the quality, character or capacity in which they appear. A party acting in one capacity or in one right cannot be affected by a judgment when acting in some other capacity of right.