MAHAVEER JAIN Vs. DURGAH COMMITTEE, AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the decree dated 20.3.14 passed by the District Judge, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 336/13, whereby the trial court has rejected the plaint of the appellant-plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of CPC.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff had instituted the suit on 11.9.13 before the trial court seeking declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 22.11.04 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) South, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 09/2002 was null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from taking possession of the suit premises which was rented to the plaintiff, without following due process of law. The appellant-plaintiff had alleged interalia that the earlier suit filed by the respondent seeking possession of the suit premises under Sec. 6 of the Transfer of Property Act was not maintainable before the Civil Court as the property belonging to respondent-Dargah Committee was included within the definition of "public premises" contained in Sec. 2(b)(xi) of the Rajasthan Public (eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1964') and hence the suit was required to be filed under the said Act. According to the appellant-plaintiff, the decree passed in the earlier suit was challenged before the first appellate court as also before the second appellant court, and the appellant had also filed an undertaking before the trial court pursuant to the order passed in the second appeal before the High Court, however the said undertaking was filed reserving the right of the appellant to agitate legal rights by filing separate proceedings. According to the appellant-plaintiff the decree passed in earlier suit being without jurisdiction was liable to be set aside.

(3.) The respondent-defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement contending interalia that after the dismissal of the second appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court, the appellant was not entitled to file the present suit. The respondent-defendant also filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by the principles of res-judicata. The trial court vide the impugned order dated 20.3.14 allowed the said application and rejected the plaint of the appellant-plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Hence the present appeal has been filed.