RANJIT SINGH Vs. GURNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ranjit Singh petitioner has filed the present revision petition directed against the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, dated 15.11.1997. By virtue of the impugned order, learned trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the respondent-plaintiff Gurnam Singh had filed a civil suit for declaration that he is the owner in possession of the house in the site plan and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and another from dispossessing or interfering in the possession of the respondent-plaintiff. The petitioner had filed an application that the previous suit filed by respondent-plaintiff Gurnam Singh had been dismissed under Order 9, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") and, therefore, the second suit on the same cause of action is barred, learned trial Court dismissed the application holding that after instituting the suit, respondent-plaintiff had amended the plaint and added paragraph 7A by virtue of which he has challenged the sale deed in favour of petitioner and, therefore, cause of action was stated to be different. The trial Court held that under Order 9, Rule 8 of the Code the suit was not barred. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) To appreciate the question in controversy, it becomes necessary to see the nature of the suit earlier filed and the present suit. In this regard, there was no dispute at the bar.