JAIPAL Vs. BHAGMALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the case of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Ors., A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 993, contended that principle of res judicata would not be applicable at interlocutory stages of the suit, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(2.) To appreciate the merit or otherwise, or this contention, reference to basic facts would be necessary, Smt. Bhagmali, Chahat Ram and Bijender filed a suit for possession of land measuring about 50 kanals 2 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Sarurpur Tehsil Ballabhgarh. The plaintiffs claimed to be owner of the suit land and had terminated the licence in favour of the defendant in the suit. They claimed to have got the suit land by inheritance and having terminated the licence, prayed for cultivatory dispossession of the defendant in the suit the ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant on October 6, 1986. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed. However, in appeal the same was set aside. The suit was contested by the defendant. He claimed to have become owner and it was stated that the suit was barred under the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act and Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit.

(3.) During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner herein had produced Exhibits D-2 to D-6 copies of the jamabandies for different years which, according to him, were obtained from Patwari Halka. Earlier an application was filed under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 7.4.1998. However, again an application was filed on 28.9.1998 under Order 18 Rule 17-A for seeking leave to lead additional evidence and produce on record the other certified copies of the same documents which allegedly had been obtained by the defendant from the office of Deputy Commissioner. This application was also dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 12.10.1998. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant in the suit (petitioner herein), has preferred the present revision petition.