* Mathew vs Elikutty on 16 November, 2018
29. Same principle has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in
Premier Tyres Ltd. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (1993 (2)
KLT 130) which was followed by a large number of decisions of this Court
including Mathew v. Rajan (2016 (1) KLJ 526). On a perusal of the impugned
judgment and Ext.A4 judgment by the District Court in A.S.No.43 of 1998, it
can be seen that the issues involved in the suit for injunction and the suit for
specific performance overlapped to a large extent and the core issue in both
the suits was about acceptability and enforceability of the terms and
conditions in Ext.A3 agreement. Therefore, I am of the view that allowing the
judgment and decree in O.S.No.164 of 1994 to attain finality will prevent this
Court from hearing and disposing of this appeal on merit by virtue of the
principles of res judicata embodied in Section 11 of the Code.