SURINDER MOHAN Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the learned trial court dated March 03, 2015, by which his application seeking rejection of the plaint in the suit filed by respondent no.1 herein has been dismissed. Vide the said suit, the respondent-plaintiff sought a declaration to the effect that the "rent agreement purporting to be dated 16.10.1989 executed between defendant No.1 and 5, and witnessed by defendant No.1 and 3, is false fictitious and forged document upon which the signatures of defendant Ajay Kumar have been forged by the other defendants, maliciously and that the said document is unenforceable and ineffective against the plaintiff".

(2.) In response to what this court had observed in its order passed yesterday, i.e. May 27, 2019, Mr. Kamra has first pointed to clause (d) contained in Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code, to submit that on an application 2 of 14 moved under the said provision, a plaint can be rejected "where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law".

(3.) He further submits that after issue no.1-A had been framed in the previous lis between the parties, i.e. Civil Suit no.455 of 1993 (such suit having been filed by the present petitioner arraigning the respondent herein as defendant no.2), the onus to prove that issue had been eventually cast only upon defendant no.1 in that suit, vide an order of the trial court (in that lis) passed on 09.08.2000, thereby 'absolving the respondent' herein from participating in that issue, and consequently, any finding recorded thereon would not be binding on the respondent on the principle of res judicata, to preclude him from raising it in a suit already instituted by him earlier, i.e. the suit in the present lis.