Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1085 (RAJ)

Govind Puri Chela v. Smt. Shankutala Sharma

2014-05-06

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 6.4.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jodhpur District, Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 11/2011, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner for dismissal of the suit on the ground of res judicata was dismissed. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier on also, another civil suit was filed by the plaintiff and her two relatives against the petitioner's grand-mother in relation to the specific performance of agreement to sale executed for the same property. The said suit was rejected by the learned Trial Court. Learned Counsel contends that a second civil suit filed around in relation to the same property is not maintainable and, thus, the order impugned be set aside and the civil suit in question be dismissed. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel Shri Praveen Mahecha appearing on behalf of the respondent pointed out that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff was not in relation to the specific performance of the agreement dated 20.12.1976. The said suit was rejected because of miscommunication between the Counsel and the 1 plaintiff and for this reason evidence could not be led before the Trial Court. He submitted that another agreement dated 14.9.1987 was executed by Ram Chandra in favour of the plaintiffs husband and the present suit has been filed for execution of the specific performance of the said agreement. Learned Counsel submitted that the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner observing that the suits were filed in relation to execution of different agreements. He thus submitted that the provisions of Section 11 C.P.C. do not apply to the facts of the present case and thus the writ petition should be dismissed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order as well; as the documents filed on the record. 5. A copy of the earlier suit which was filed by Smt. Kamla, Smt. Shakuntala and Ram Chandra against Smt. Sohni Devi is available on the record as Annexure-8. The prayer made in the said suit is specifically restricted for specific ti performance of the agreement dated 20.12.1976. The said suit was rejected because evidence could not be led before the Trial Court on behalf of the plaintiffs. The prayer made in the said suit is specifically restricted for specific ti performance of the agreement dated 20.12.1976. The said suit was rejected because evidence could not be led before the Trial Court on behalf of the plaintiffs. The present suit in relation whereto the impugned order has been passed was filed for the specific performance of a contract executed by late Shri Ramanand on 14.9.1987. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the cause of action in both the suits is totally different as the suits were filed for specific performance of different agreements and the parties are also different. The provisions of Section 11 C.P.C. do not apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for dismissal of the suit on the ground of res judicata.Resultantly, the writ petition as well as the stay petition being bereft of any force are hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******