Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.73 seconds)Satyadhyan Ghosal And Others vs Sm. Deorajin Debi And Another on 20 April, 1960
17. The view stated in the above case to the effect that an order made in the course of a proceeding which has attained finality, is binding in subsequent proceedings, between the parties to the said litigation, has been and is being consistently followed by the Apex Court as well as High Courts in respect of the res between the same parties. In that view of the matter, there can be no dispute about the law laid down in the decisions cited and reliance placed thereon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners-defendants in support of his plea of res judicata.
Sheodan Singh vs Smt. Daryao Kunwar on 14 January, 1966
In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, wherein it was held:
Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb vs Gaur Hari Mahato on 30 June, 1936
18. It may be noticed whether the order dated 12-12-2000 made by this Court in CRP No. 3715 of 2000, whereby the order of the Court below appointing a Surveyor to demarcate the lands, was set aside, would operate as res judicata, precluding the plaintiffs from filing the present application. It is well settled that the question of res judicata has to be specifically pleaded and that it is not open to the party to canvas the plea of res judicata before the High Court for the first time when it was not raised before the trial Court (See Jagadish Chandra Deo v. Gour Hari Mahato, AIR 1936 PC 258 and Suryya v. Bala Gangadhara). In the instant case, the defendants have not taken the plea of res judicata before the Court below, and it is only for the first time, an argument was advanced before this Court, though not pleaded in the grounds of revision, that in view of the order of this Court in CRP No. 3715 of 2000, dated 12-12-2000, the present application filed for the very same relief of appointment of Surveyor, is hit by the doctrine of res judicata, and therefore, barred. In order to satisfy whether or not the present application is hit by the doctrine of res judicata, it may be noticed under what circumstances, the Court below allowed the CRP setting aside the order passed by the Court below appointing Surveyor. In this context, it would be appropriate to extract the following observations, made by this Court in CRP No. 3715 of 2000, vide order dated 12-12-2000:
Section 11 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
N. Annappa vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 10 May, 1999
In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, and N. Annappa v. State of Karnataka and Anr., 1999 (9) Supreme 502, and the judgment of this Court in Anirudha v. Amarendra, .
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Forum For A Better Hyderabad, ... vs Govt. Of A.P. And Others on 15 June, 2001
In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgments of various High Courts in Ponnusamy v. Salem Vaiyappamalai Jangamar Sangam, , Confederation of A.P. Consumer Organisation v. Government ofA.P., 1997 (5) ALD 430 and Kuttappan v. Sarojini Bhaskaran, .
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court with respect to the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, I shall now proceed to consider whether the Court below by appointing a Surveyor, has assumed a jurisdiction not vested in it or has exercised the jurisdiction in a manner not permitted by law, resulting in grave injustice and failure of justice, to the petitioners with reference to each of the contentions advanced on their behalf.