LexVAISHAGGARWAL PANCHAYAT versus INDER KUMAR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 637 VAISHAGGARWAL PANCHAYAT v. INDER KUMAR AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.2089 of 2015) AUGUST25, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] A B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 11 and Or. 7 r.11 ( d) - Rejection of plaint - Decree dated 19.9.1998 in favour of C respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - While pending execution, objection filed by the appellant, claiming to be owner of the property - Objection rejected - Thereafter, appellant filing application for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19. 9. 1998 and for stay of execution - Dismissed-Appellant 0 further filing suit for declaring the judgment/decree dated 19.9.1998 and the subse·quent sale deed as null and void with consequential relief of permanent injunction -Application by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Or. 7 r. 11 CPC - Trial court allowed the application-Appeal allowed by appellate court- E High Court allowing the revision held that the suit was barred by principle of res judicata - On appeal, held: In the facts of the case, the suit is not barred by the principle of res judicata - It is not prima facie discernible from the plaint that it lacked any cause of action or was barred by any law- There should F have been trial, with regard to all the issues framed. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The allegations in the plaint are absolutely different from the earlier objections in the application. G There is an.asseveration of fraud and collusion. There is an assertion that in the earlier suit a decree came to be passed because of fraud and collusion. Even if the 637 H 638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. A plaint is read keeping in mind the cleverness and deftness in drafting, yet it is not prima facie discernible from the plaint that it lacks any cause of action or is barred by any law. On a perusal of the plaint alone, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by the principle of B resjudicata. In such a fact situation, the High Court has fallen into error by expressing the view that the plea of resjudicata was obvious from the plaint. In fact, a finding has been recorded by the High Court accepting the plea taken in the written statement. In the obtaining factual C matrix, there should have been a trial with regard to all the issues framed. [Para 17] [650-A-C] \I. Rajeshwari v. T. C. Saravanabava 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 927: (2004) 1 SCC 551; Kamala and others v. K. T. D · Eshwara SA and others 2008 (7) SCR 39: (2008) 12 SCC 661; Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. v. Hanuman Seva Trust (2006) 5 SCC 658; Ba/asaria Construction (P) Ltd. v. Hanuman Seva Trust (2006) 5 SCC 662 - referred to. E F Case Law Reference 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 927 referred to. 2008 (7) SCR 39 referred to. (2006) 5 sec 658 (2006) 5 sec 662 referred to. referred to. Para 11 Para 13 Para 14 Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. G 2089 of 2015. H From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2007 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 3695 of 2006. With .. VAISH AGGARWAL PANCHAYAT v. INDER KUMAR AND 639 OTHERS C.A. No. 2091 of2015 Mahabir Singh, K.V. Vishwanathan, Preeti Singh, Gagan Deep Sharma, Nikhil Jain, Sachin Jain, Dr. Kailash Chand, Adeeba Mujahid, Balaji Srinivasan for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A B DIPAK MISRA, J. The facts relevant to be stated for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - lnder Kumar and Yogendra Kumar, had filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 806 of 1993 against Krishan C Chand Gupta, respondent No. 5, and Ved Prakash, original respondent No. 3, for a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell in respect of land measuring 20 kanals with the consequential relief of permanent injunction. The suit was D decreed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Kurukshetra by judgment and decree dated 19.9.1998 and no appeal was preferred against the same. Subsequently, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 sought execution of the decree and during its pendency, the Petitioner, VaishAggarwal Panchayat (society), E filed objections claiming that it is the owner of the suit land by · way of gift deeds dated 5.3.1997 and 6.3.1997 executed by Ved Prakash and Banarsi Dass. The objections filed by the Society were rejected vide order dated 4.11.2000. Thereafter, the Society filed an application for setting aside the judgment F and decree dated 19.9.199
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.