KAILASH NATH Vs. PANDIT CHANDRA BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, by the defendant, against a decree passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court at Cawnpore. The suit which gave rise to the revision was brought by the plaintiff opposite party for recovery of Rs. 394 and interest on the allegation that the parties to this case had agreed to take a joint contract from the Public Works Department at Jhansi, that the plaintiff paid Rs. 394 to the defendant, who was to contribute an equal amount and to deposit the whole as security in case the contract was given, that the money was deposited in the Public Works Department but the contract was not obtained and that the money was returned to the defendant, who is liable to refund what had been paid by the plaintiff. The plaint goes on to allege that four persons, including the parties to this case and one Banerji (the name of 4 person is not material) were concerned in a certain partnership, that a suit for dissolution of partnership was pending in the Civil Court at Jhansi, that Banerji instituted a suit against the parties to this case claiming the sum of Rs, 394, now in question as his, that in that suit the defendant made a statement admitting his readiness to pay it to Banerji or the plaintiff according as the right of one or the other was determined and that the plaintiff agreed to defer his claim till the question of right to the money was decided. The suit brought by Banerji was decided on February 19, 1932, and it was found that Banerji had no claim to the sum in dispute. The suit which has given rise to this revision was instituted on February 9, 1934. A number of pleas were taken by the defendant in contesting the plaintiff's claim. It was alleged that the Court at Cawnpore had no jurisdiction to try the suit, as the plaintiff had paid the sum in dispute at Jhansi. Limitation was also pleaded. It was also urged that the suit was barred by res judicata. The lower Court over-ruled all these pleas and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The aforesaid three questions have been argued in revision.

(2.) The question of forum may very briefly be disposed of. The plaintiff, while giving his own evidence, stated that he had handed over the money to the defendant at Cawnpore. This statement has been believed by the lower Court, and I see no reason to do otherwise. This being so, the Court below had jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) As regards the question of res judicata, the written statement has baldly asserted that the suit is barred by res judicata. It does not assert what the issues involved in the Jhansi case were, what the Court decided and how that decision bars the determination of any of the questions in controversy in the present case. No copy of the pleadings or judgment of that case has been produced. In these circumstance I am of opinion that the plea of res judicata cannot be seriously considered and the lower Court was right in repelling it.