TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses writ petition, upholds decree finality, bars subsequent suit under res judicata. Withdrawal without permission precludes fresh suits.</h1> <h3>Hari Ram Versus Lichmaniya and Ors.</h3> Hari Ram Versus Lichmaniya and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Abuse of court process and harassment.2. Finality of decrees and execution proceedings.3. Res judicata and bar on subsequent suits.4. Withdrawal of suits without court permission.5. Alleged agreement and satisfaction of claims.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Abuse of Court Process and Harassment:The court recognized the petitioner's actions as a glaring case of harassment by abusing the process of the court. The petitioner compelled the non-petitioners to face litigation even after 42 years of obtaining a decree for possession by their ancestor. This abuse of the judicial process was evident through multiple frivolous suits filed by the petitioner.2. Finality of Decrees and Execution Proceedings:The court emphasized the finality of the decree dated 22nd August 1960, which granted possession to Ram Chandra. Despite the petitioner's claims of a settlement, the decree was executed, and possession was delivered to Ram Chandra's legal representatives in 1981. The court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the decree during Ram Chandra's lifetime and only filed a suit for possession in 1983, long after Ram Chandra's death.3. Res Judicata and Bar on Subsequent Suits:The court examined the principles of res judicata, which prevent re-litigation of issues that have already been decided. The trial court had framed issues regarding whether the petitioner was bound by the judgment and decree dated 22nd August 1960 and whether the suit was barred by res judicata. The court found that the petitioner's subsequent suit (Suit No. 101/90) was barred by res judicata because it involved the same subject matter and issues as the earlier suit (Suit No. 49/83), which had been withdrawn without permission.4. Withdrawal of Suits Without Court Permission:The court discussed the legal implications of withdrawing a suit without court permission under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the CPC. It held that such withdrawal amounts to abandonment of the claim and precludes the plaintiff from instituting a fresh suit on the same subject matter. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind this provision is to avoid multiple suits and ensure finality in litigation.5. Alleged Agreement and Satisfaction of Claims:The petitioner claimed that Ram Chandra had executed an agreement in 1962, relinquishing his right to take possession of the land in dispute. The court noted that this agreement was not raised during the execution proceedings or the earlier litigation. The court found that the petitioner's claim of satisfaction of the suit claim through this agreement was not supported by evidence and was merely an attempt to prolong the litigation.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. It held that the petitioner's actions constituted an abuse of the judicial process, and the subsequent suit was barred by res judicata. The court reiterated the importance of finality in litigation and the need to prevent multiple suits on the same subject matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
