Patna High Court - Orders
Akhilesh Singh @ Akhileshwar Kumar ... vs Suresh Prasad Singh & Ors on 6 May, 2014
Author: Mungeshwar Sahoo
Bench: Mungeshwar Sahoo
Patna High Court CWJC No.20570 of 2013 (2) dt.06-05-2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20570 of 2013
======================================================
Akhilesh Singh @ Akhileshwar Kumar Singh & Anr
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Suresh Prasad Singh & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Roy
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR
SAHOO
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2014(1) Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the petitioners and the learned counsel, Mr. Kamla Prasad Roy for the respondents.
(2) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendants-petitioners against the order dated 08.07.2013 passed by Munsif III, Saran at Chapra in Title Suit No.87 of 2003.
(3) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Pleader Commissioner's report was submitted in the year 2007. The plaintiff then filed objection to the Pleader Commissioner's report and when the plaintiff did not press his objection, the defendant filed his objection on 30.04.2013 and by the impugned order, the court below without deciding the objection of the petitioners on merit rejected the same. The learned counsel submitted that the Court should decide the objection on its Patna High Court CWJC No.20570 of 2013 (2) dt.06-05-2014 2 merit and should not reject the same on technical ground. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon 2007(3) PLJR 719.
(4) On the other hand, the learned counsel, Mr. Kamla Prasad Roy for the respondents submitted that the defendants-petitioners had earlier filed objection to the Pleader Commissioner's report on 07.01.2013 and on 30.04.2013, the court below had already rejected the application filed by the defendants holding that the Pleader Commissioner's report had already been confirmed as there was no objection and, therefore, there is no question of entertaining the subsequent objection.
(5) Perused the order. It appears that the petitioners had earlier filed objection on 07.01.2013 which has been annexed as Annexure 2 to this writ application. By order dated 30.04.2013, the court below considering the submissions of both the parties and the objection by terms of order dated 30.04.2013 as contained in Annexure 4 to this writ application has rejected the same. Thereafter, on the same date i.e. on 30.04.2013, another objection was filed by the defendants-petitioners which has been rejected by the court below by the impugned order.
(6) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. State of U.P. and Patna High Court CWJC No.20570 of 2013 (2) dt.06-05-2014 3 another, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 446 has held that the principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. Res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to the 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. Here, admittedly, the objection of the petitioners had earlier been rejected by terms of order dated 30.04.2013. Now, therefore, the subsequent objection filed by the petitioners is barred by the principle of res- judicata. Therefore, the court below has rightly rejected the objection petition of the defendants-petitioners. However, if the petitioner will pray for cross-examination of the Pleader Commissioner, the Court shall consider the same.
(7) Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/-