LAWS(JHAR)-2017-7-109

SUBHASH CH. MAHATO Vs. CHARKU MAHATO

Decided On July 18, 2017
Subhash Ch. Mahato Appellant
V/S
Charku Mahato Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for the parties.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 14.02.2007, passed by Sub-Judge, 1st, Bokaro, in Title (P) No. 26 of 2003, by reasons of which the application filed by the petitioners (defendants in the suit) under Order 14, Rule 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as C.P.C.) has been rejected.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed an application under Order 14, Rule 2 (2) of C.P.C. before the learned court below for disposal of the suit on preliminary issue. The main reason for filing of the said application was that the present suit was barred by principles of res judicata, as on the same issue, earlier suit being Title (P) No. 102/87 was dismissed on merit vide order dated 13.03.2001 by the Sub Judge, Bokaro, and Title Appeal No. 13 of 2001 against the said order was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.03.2003, passed by A.D.J.-IV, Bokaro. Moreover, the review petition was also dismissed on 19.06.2003. Learned senior counsel further submits that the learned Sub Judge, I, Bokaro rejected the application of the petitioners filed under Order 14, Rule 2 (2) C.P.C. without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioners so as to establish that the issue raised by the plaintiffs/respondents in the present suit i.e. Title (P) No. 267 of 2003 has already been adjudicated by the court in Title (P) Suit No. 102/87 between the same parties which has attained finality. However, without going into the details of the similarity of both the suits, the learned Sub Judge-I, Bokaro, vide impugned order dated 14.02.2007 rejected the application of the petitioners observing inter alia that the said application is vague. Learned trial court should have at least given opportunity to the petitioners to establish the fact agitated through the application filed under Order 14, Rule 2 (2) of C.P.C. and should not have rejected the application summarily.