Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel, on merit of the civil revision application, submitted that it is true that by virtue of order dated 25.05.1998 passed in Title suit no. 119 of 1993/30 of 1998, petitioners were precluded from bringing any fresh suit, with respect to the suit properties, but the present suit, filed on behalf of plaintiffs- petitioners as far back as in the year 1969, will not be governed by the aforesaid order dated 25.05.1998. In his submission, the present suit is not a fresh suit, rather a suit, filed previously in the year 1969 and that stood revived by order dated 1.09.1997 (Annexure-3), much prior to the order having been passed on 25.05.1998(Annexure-4) in Title suit no. 119 of 1993. He has further submitted that on plain perusal of impugned order dated 10.8.1999, it is apparent that learned court below has not considered the merit of the claims of the respective parties. There has been no adjudication regarding the dispute of share of the parties with respect to the suit properties. There is nothing to show on the record that even issues were framed in the title suit by the learned trial court. Apparently evidence on behalf of the parties has neither been recorded by the learned trial court nor it has been discussed at all in the impugned order. Rights of the parties have not at all been determined in the suit. This is not even a case of rejection of the plaint. Rather on complete misinterpretation of order dated 25.5.1998 passed in Title Suit No. 119 of 1993, the present suit of the year 1969 has been held to be not maintainable. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, by no stretch of imagination, the order impugned can be treated to be a decree under the meaning of Section 2(2) C.P.C. Hence according to him, the present civil revision application is maintainable. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments:

23. From the facts noted above, it is further apparent that though the title suit is pending since 1969 and it remained abated for quite a long time in terms of section 4( c ) of the Consolidation Act, and even after revival of the instant title suit by an order dated 1.9. 1997 (Annexure-3), the title suit could not be taken to its logical conclusion because of the impugned order dated 10.8.1999 on complete misinterpretation of an order dated 25.5.1998 (Annexure-4) passed in Title Suit No. 119 of 1993. Merits of the claim of the parties, regarding suit property, have not been gone into, though both sides are admittedly descendants of their common ancestor and are having share in the suit properties.