KARNAM SUBRAMANYA RAO Vs. PULLA RAMI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case a former District Munsif heard arguments on the question whether the petition under Madras Act IV of 1938 would lie under Section 19, having regard to the provisions of Section 10(2)(ii) and he passed a considered order that there was no vendor's lien in respect of the liability and no obstacle under that section to the application. He then adjourned the matter for further enquiry. He was transferred and his successor instead of proceeding with the matter where his predecessor left it, reopened the issue which had been decided and gave a contrary finding and dismissed the application on that finding. I am of opinion that he had no jurisdiction to do that. Granting that the matter is not precisely covered by Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, that section is not exhaustive of the applicability of the principle of res judicata. Hook V/s. Administrator-General of Bengal (1921) 40 M.L.J. 423 : L.R. 48 I.A. 187 : I.L.R. 48 Cal. 499 (P.C.). When an issue has been made the subject of a final order by a Court, that order cannot be ignored by a succeeding Judge nor has the Court jurisdiction to alter its decision except on grounds which would justify a review vide B as ant a Kumar Das V/s. Kusum Kumari Dasi (1916) I.L.R. 44 Cal. 28. If the correctness of this order is to be attacked otherwise, it can only be done by way of appeal against the final order on the application, which remedy is still open. The petition is allowed with costs and the application is remitted to the trial Court for disposal on the merits.