SURAJ DEVI Vs. KEWAL KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Suraj Devi has filed this revision against the order of the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Bikaner dated 27 8 84 by which three issues, treated as preliminary issues, have been decided against her.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are that the non-petitioner Kiwal Krishna filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendant Smt. Suraj Devi and others alleging that he was originally the tenant of the defendants no. 3 to 5 in the premises described in para 1 of the plaint. He was granted the facilities of electricity and water by the original land lords and he had been paying the charges thereof regularly to the original land lords. Later, part of the premises was purchased by defendant no. 1 Smt. Suraj Devi and the plaintiff continued to be in possession thereof as a tenant and had been enjoying the facilities of electricity and water and he also continued to pay the charges thereof to Smt. Suraj Devi. However, it was alleged that the defendant no. 1 disconnected the electric and water connections from the suit premises without any reason and without the order of any competent court, whereupon the plaintiff applied under section 12 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the S. D. M. City, Bikaner. That application was dismissed by the learned S. D. M. , holding that there was no agreement between the land lords and the tenant about the supply of water and electricity and, therefore, the tenant was not entitled to the restoration of the said facilities. Having failed in the proceedings under section 12 (3) of the Act, the plaintiff filed the present suit claiming a decree for a declaration that there was an agreement between the original land-lords and the tenant for the supply of electricity and water to the tenant and the same continued with defendant no. 1, that the supply have wrongly been cut off by defendant no. 1 and he also prayed for a mandatory injunction directing defendant no. 1 to restore the facilities so dis-connected Defendants no 1 and 2 contested about the suit and while denying the allegations about the agreement regarding supply of electricity and water they, inter alia, pleaded that the suit was barred by resjudicata as the matter had been decided by the Magistrate and the plaintiff's appeal before the District Magistrate had also failed that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the present suit. On these pleadings eight issues were framed by the trial court, out of which issues no. 1,4 and 6 regarding res-judicata, jurisdiction and estopple were treated as preliminary issues and after hearing the parties, the learned Addl. Civil Judge decided all the three issues against the defendants and held that the suit was maintainable. Aggrieved of this order of the learned Addl. Civil Judge dated 27. 8. 84, defendant no. 1 Suraj Devi had come up in revision.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner had brought to my notice the decisions reported in THE Workmen of Co-coin Port Trust V. THE Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust (2) Smt. Krishnabai Vs. Baburac (3) Commissioner, Trichur Municipality vs. Krishnan Menon (4) THE Premier Automobiles Ltd. V. K. S. Vadke (5) and Munshi vs. Chairanji Singh (6) I have carefully gone through them but in my opinion none of them applies to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as in none of these authorities it has been laid down that the order of an authority having only summary jurisdiction and whose decisions are not final would operate as res judicata in a suit before a civil court. I, therefore, do not propose to deal with these authorities in detail.