GULAB BAI Vs. MANPHOOL BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following two questions have been referred to this Full Bench for decision-- 1. Whether in a case which involves a question of great public or private importance certificate for leave to appeal under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India and Section 109 (c) of the Civil Procedure Code can be given, even though the valuation is less than that prescribed by Clauses (a) and (b) of Article 133 (1) of the Constitution of India and Section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code and the point in dispute is measurable by money?

(2.) Whether a decision on the point of res judi-cata when there are different views of different High Courts on the point can be said to raise questions of great public and private importance? 2. The facts which have led to this reference, may be briefly narrated. A suit was filed by Man-phul Bai against Laduram and Gulab Bai in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, for ejectment and arrears of rent on the basis of a rent note executed by Laduram. Gulab Bai was made a party on the ground that she claimed proprietary rights in the house, but no relief was asked against her. The suit was contested on various grounds and was decreed by the trial court. There was an appeal to the District Judge which was allowed on the ground of res judicata. Thereupon, there was a second appeal to this court, and it was contended that the decision of the District Judge on the question of res judicata was in-correct. The second appeal was allowed by a Bench of this court, and a decree was passed in favour of Manphul Bai for arrears of rent & ejectment against Laduram only. The dispute as to ownership between Manphul Bai and Gulab Bai was left undecided by this court.

(3.) Thereupon, there was an application by Gulab Bai and Laduram for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. It may be mentioned that the valuation of the suit as well as of the appeal before the District Judge, and of the second appeal in this court was only Rs. 2,400/- The application for leave to appeal came before a Bench of this court, and it was held that the case was not covered by Article 133 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution. It was, however, contended before that Bench that, the case was covered by Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution, which corresponded to section 109 (c) of the Civil Procedure Code, and leave should therefore be granted under those provisions. Thereupon, these two questions, which arise for determination, have been referred to a Full Bench for reply.