2004 (2) TMI 738

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er submits that the order passed by the Court below is neither appealable nor revisable and this petition may be entertained. The contention is that the Trial Court without following the procedure of law decided the application filed by respondents. Before deciding the application under Section 9 of CPC and to consider the plea of res judicata, it was necessary for the respondents to place all material on record and the Trial Court ought to have considered the pleadings of previous suit, issues and the judgment without which plea of res judicata can not be decided. Reliance is placed to a Judgment of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Babu Lal 1992 MPLJ 25. Contending aforesaid, the learned Counsel for petitioner submits that this ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the land and is in possession of the land. He also pleaded that on 16-6-1960, Jai Ram handed over possession of this land to Gokul Prasad. The Supreme Court has finally decided the matter, and thereafter the present suit has been filed by the petitioner claiming rights through Gokul Prasad and Sardar Bahu, Considering aforesaid, the Trial Court found that the present suit is barred by principle of res judicata and dismissed it. Firstly, it may be seen whether the order passed by the Trial Court may be challenged in appeal or revision or the only remedy is petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff under Section 9 of CPC on the ground that suit is barred....