Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

7. Mr. R.Subramaniam, learned senior counsel, for Mrs. S.Hemalatha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Court below has failed to follow the procedure under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC before granting an order of exparte interim injunction. He submitted that the Court below failed to see that the suit property was conveyed by the respondents 1 to 4 alongwith Smt.Sallammal, the mother of the third respondent, in favour of the fifth respondent, as early as on 01.11.1995 and as such the family of the plaintiffs seized to be the owners of the property from the said date and therefore the suit for partition filed in October 2009 is not maintainable. He further submitted that the fifth respondent, who had purchased the suit property under the sale deed dated 01.11.1995, filed a suit in O.S.No.27 of 2000 before the Sub Court, Ranipet, against his vendors including respondents 1 and 2 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and the suit was decreed exparte and the decree has become final and this material fact has not been taken into consideration by the trial court, while considering the injunction application. He further submitted that the present suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 is a clear abuse of process of Court and they are relitigating the same issue, which arose for consideration in the earlier suit in O.S.No.27 of 2000 and the decree passed in O.S.No.27 of 2000 will operate as res judicata and therefore the plaint in the present suit is liable to be struck off. He further submitted that in the written statement filed in O.S.No.27 of 2000, the respondents 1 and 2 herein have raised the same plea, namely, that they were minors at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of the fifth respondent and there was no necessity for executing the sale deed and there was no family debts to be discharged and therefore the sale deed in favour of the fifth respondent is not binding on them and the very same plea has been raised in the present suit for partition and thus it is clear that the very same issue which was involved in the earlier suit is sought to be raised in the present suit and therefore the present suit is barred by the principles of res judicata.

"19. Admittedly the appellants' application was decided ex parte. It is true that ex parte decrees operate to render the matter decided res judicata, and the defendants' failure to appear will not deprive the plaintiff of the benefit of his decree. But in the case of a suit in which a decree is passed ex parte, the only matter that can be 'directly and substantially in issue' is the matter in respect of which relief has been claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint. ...."

13. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.27 of 2000 will operate as res judicata in the present suit. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, this aspect ought to have been considered by the trial court, while considering the injunction application, but unfortunately the trial court was not considered the effect of the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.27 of 2000. Further, as has been laid down by the learned Single Judge, in the above referred to decision, the trial court ought to have considered, whether in the light of the pleadings contained in the plaint itself, there was possibility of decreeing the suit and this exercise has also not been done by the trial court. Further, it has to be pointed out that if the trial court had considered the pleadings in the present suit and considered the effect of the earlier exparte decree passed in O.S.No.27 of 2000, the trial court could have easily seen that the present suit is a clear abuse of process of Court and the respondents 1 and 2 herein are relitigating the same issue which felt for consideration in the earlier suit and on that ground the trial court ought to have even rejected the plaint, but instead has ordered exparte order of interim injunction that too without following the procedure contemplated under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.