Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 558 (RAJ)

Jugraj Parihar v. Achla Ram

2016-04-22

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. A suit for cancellation of the Will was filed by the respondent. The petitioners appeared and filed application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation, the valuation made was not appropriate and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected. 3. The said application came to be rejected by the trial court by its order dated 26.09.2015. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision petition before this Court. The said revision petition was also dismissed by order dated 19.11.2015 passed in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 209/2015. 5. Where after, the present application has been filed by the petitioners again under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same is barred by limitation and again a plea has been raised regarding insufficient Court fees. 6. When the petitioners were confronted with order dated 26.09.2015 passed by the trial court and order dated 19.11.2015 passed in the revision petition by this Court, it was argued that the High Court while deciding the revision petition did not take into consideration the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the fresh application was maintainable. 7. However, the trial court after hearing the parties dismissed the application as the similar nature application had already been rejected earlier. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the submissions as made before the trial court. It was submitted that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 it is the duty of the Court to examine as to whether the suit is within limitation and despite the fact that petitioners pointed out the same by way of application under Order7, Rule 11 CPC, the same has been rejected. It was further submitted that provision of res judicata does not apply as the same only applies to a decree. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-caveator duly supported the order passed by the trial court. It was submitted that once the application has already been rejected and upheld by this Court, the second application is not maintainable. 10. It was further submitted that provision of res judicata does not apply as the same only applies to a decree. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-caveator duly supported the order passed by the trial court. It was submitted that once the application has already been rejected and upheld by this Court, the second application is not maintainable. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. It is well settled that res judicata applies between different stages of the same suit as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 993 and which was followed in Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archna Kumar & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 626 . 12. In that view of the matter, once the application was rejected by the trial court and the order was upheld in revision petition, the subsequent application on the same ground was not maintainable and, therefore, no interference in the order passed by the trial court is called for. 13. The revision petition filed by the petitioners has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.