DRAKSHARAM CHANDRAMOULI Vs. GUNDA SATYA NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada in Small Cause Suit No. 223 of 1923. The petitioner brought a suit for Rs. 224-4-6 being the wages due for dyeing work done by him to the defendants. The defendants filed a S.C.S. No. 820 of 1922 in the Bezwada District Munsif's Court against the plaintiff for damages on the ground that the plaintiff damaged the material when he dyed it. In S.C.S. No. 820 of 1922 the plaintiff (defendants in S.C.S. No. 223 of 1923) got a decree for damages and when the Small Cause Suit No. 223 of 1923 came on for hearing they raised the plea of res judicata. The Subordiuete Judge has upheld this plea and the plaintiff has filed this Revision Petition. The question is whether a defendant is bound to raise as defence a counter-claim or a claim for set off against the plaintiff's claim.

(2.) The defendants S.C.S. No. 820 of 1922 was for damages on account of the material being spoiled by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim in S.C.S. No. 223 of 1923 is for the wages due for dyeing work done by him. The plaintiff herein could have put forward a counter-claim against the defendants in their S.C.S. The point for decision is, was the plaintiff bound to do so and whether his not having done so would bar his suit on the ground of res judicata. Explanation 4, to Section 11, Civil P.C. runs thus: Any matter which might or ought to have been made ground of defence of attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue.

(3.) According to this explanation any matter which could have been made a ground of defence or attack, should relate to the claim in the former suit.