Plaintiff's Appeals Dismissed: Judgment Upheld as 'Res Judicata', Appeals Deemed Time-Barred Under Indian Limitation Act.

The High Court dismissed both appeals filed by the Plaintiff, upholding the lower courts' rulings. It confirmed the previous judgment as 'res judicata', rendering the current suit untenable. The Plaintiff's appeal was deemed time-barred, with no entitlement to period exclusion under Sections 12 or 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The Court clarified that remedies must align with the order passed, not its effect, under Order 17, Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the CPC.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Res Judicata
2. Limitation Period for Filing Appeals
3. Application of Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act
4. Application of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act
5. Order 17, Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Res Judicata:
The Plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the lower court, which held that the previous judgment operated as 'res judicata'. The Plaintiff contended that the previous decision was not 'res judicata'. The Defendant argued that the lower courts correctly held the previous judgment as 'res judicata'. The High Court upheld the lower courts' decision, confirming that the previous judgment did indeed operate as 'res judicata' and thus, the Plaintiff's current suit was not tenable.

2. Limitation Period for Filing Appeals:
The Plaintiff's appeal against the judgment dated 6th Ardibehisht 1354 F. was dismissed as time-barred. The Plaintiff argued that the period from the date of the judgment to the date of supplying the decree should be considered as 'time requisite' for obtaining the copies, which would make the appeal within the limitation period. The High Court, however, upheld the lower court's decision, stating that the appeal was indeed time-barred as the Plaintiff did not apply for the copies within the prescribed period.

3. Application of Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act:
The Plaintiff relied on Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act to argue that the period from the date of the judgment to the date of obtaining the decree should be excluded. The High Court examined various precedents and interpretations of Section 12, concluding that the 'time requisite' for obtaining copies does not begin until an application for copies has been made. Since the Plaintiff applied for the copies long after the expiration of the prescribed period, the High Court held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to exclude any period prior to the date of application under Section 12.

4. Application of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act:
The Plaintiff did not file a petition under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to condone the delay. The High Court noted that even if such a petition had been filed, the Plaintiff would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 5 due to negligence and carelessness. Thus, the Plaintiff could not claim the exclusion of any period under Section 5.

5. Order 17, Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The Plaintiff's suit was dismissed on 6th Ardibehisht 1354 F. due to the absence of the Plaintiff's pleader and lack of evidence. The Plaintiff argued that the order was not under Order 17, Rule 3, as no judgment on the merits was given. The High Court referred to a Full Bench decision, which held that for seeking a remedy, the party must consider the order passed by the Court, not its effect. The High Court concluded that the Plaintiff's argument did not hold, as the appeal against the order was dismissed as time-barred, and this judgment operated as 'res judicata'.

Conclusion:
Both appeals filed by the Plaintiff were dismissed. The High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, confirming that the previous judgment operated as 'res judicata', and the Plaintiff's appeal was time-barred. The Plaintiff was not entitled to the exclusion of any period under Section 12 or Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The High Court also clarified the application of Order 17, Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that the remedy must be sought based on the order passed by the Court.

---