TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1970 (8) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the terms of the decree, it was executable after 16 months and after plaintiff Jai Gopal had deposited Rs. 3,700.00 in Court, which amount was to be paid to the judgment-debtors only when they had given vacant possession of the house. The suit with regard to the recovery of arrears of rent was dismissed and the parties were directed to bear their own costs. (2) On 6-6-1959 Jai Gopal decree-holder made an application for execution of the decree against the judgment-debtors who raised various objections to the execution of this decree. One of the objections raised was that the decree sought to be executed was' based upon a compromise and not upon any finding of the Court as required under section 13 of the Act and so it was null and void and not executable. The executing Court, following the then existing decisions of the Punjab High Court, overruled this objection by an order dated 7-9-1960. An appeal was filed against this decision which was also dismissed by an order dated 30th October, 1961. A revision was filed before the High Court which was also dismissed on 19th December, 1962. (3) Jai Gopal sold his specific half share in the house in dispute in March 1962 to Kani....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fact, a compromise decree. It was passed on the basis of admissions made by the defendants that they owed money to the decree-holder and that they were tenants. The compromise was only to the extent that the plaintiff accepted the defendants' 'statement. I am afraid, the case is not so simple as stated by the learned counsel. The relevant terms of the decree as translated by the executing Court are as follows :- "AS per statement of parties the suit for ejectment of the suit property is decreed against the defendant. Execution can be carried out after 16 months; that the plaintiff would deposit Rs. 3,700.00 in the Court and the same be paid to the judgment-debtors when they would actually deliver the possession to the decree-holder; that the suit about rent stands dismissed and parties are left to bear their own costs," (7) Both the Courts below have proceeded on the basis that it was a compromise decree and it was never the contention of the respondents that it was something else than a decree based on a compromise. I have gone through the record and I find that before the compromise was recorded an application was moved on behalf of Chandu Lal minor seeking th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es judicata.. Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with the principle of res judicata. It lays down that a matter directly and substantially in issue in a suit if directly and substantially in issue in a previous suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any one of them claim, litigating under the same title and had been heard and finally decided by a competent Court, shall not be tried again. The petitioners contend that issues may be of fact. of law and of mixed questions of fact and law. As regards the issues of law, in case they are pure questions of law having no relation to the circumstances, decision regarding such an issue will not operate as res judicata. The Supreme Court in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and others v. Dossibai N. S. Jeejeebhoy, 1970 R.C.R. 396, while deciding the question of res judicata, held as under :- " BUT the doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure : it cannot be exalted to the status of a legislative direction between the parties so as to determine the question relating to the interpretation of enactment effecting the jurisdiction of a Court finally between them, even though no question ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the Act to similar circumstances. The Supreme Court also upheld the application of those provisions. When the petitioner moved another petition in respect of the same property and between the same parties for the application of the same provisions of the Act. the Sub Judge held that it was barred by res judicata. This contention was negatived by the Supreme Court in the terms reproduced above. (12) The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon State of West Bengal v. Hemant Kumar Bhattacharjee and others, Air 1966 S.C. 1961 Smt. Revti Devi v. Khiali Ram and others, 1967 D.L.T. 241 Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee and others v. Kedar Nath Haldar, AIR 1928 Cal 777 and Vasudeva Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and Ors, 1970 R.C.R. 427 I am afraid these decisions are not applicable to the circumstances of this case and, on the other hand, it is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal case. I, Therefore, hold that the principle of rest judicata does not apply to the circumstances of the instant case and it can be decided whether the compromise decree is a nullity or not. (13) The second contention of the petitioners is ....