TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (2) TMI 251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id to be in default for the months of September and October, 1977. On the first hearing day the tenant deposited a sum of Rs.3600/- said to represent the arrears of rent due from him. In the written statement the tenant also took the stand that the rent for the month of April and May, 1976 had already been paid. After some hearings, the tenant absented himself and the petition for eviction was ordered ex-parte. Thereupon he filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte order contending that the Landlord had met him on the last Saturday of July, 1978 and after some discussion he told him that he would withdraw the eviction case. The Landlord also received cheques from him towards rent. The tenant did not appear again in Court as the Landlord ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no misrepresentation on the part of the respondent, the applicant would not have paid him the rent for the subsequent period as is clear from Ex. A.I and Ex. A.2. There is evidence of the applicant during cross examination that after November, 1978, the rent was received by the respondent through filing the eviction petition in the court. The fact that the rent was accepted directly by the respondent from the applicant during this period, shows that there was some settlement between the parties. The statement of the applicant that the respondent told him that he will withdraw the petition and further that he had withdrawn the petition has gone unrebutted. According to the applicant he did not appear in the court on account of certain repres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings." It was however clarified that it did not mean that because at an earlier stage of the litigation a Court has decided an interlocutory matter in one way and no appeal has been taken therefrom or no appeal did lie, a higher court cannot at a later stage of the same litigation consider the matter again. We are not also concerned here with orders of an interlocutory nature such as orders granting temporary injunction, appointing receiver etc. which do not purport to decide the rights of the parties finally. In the pres....