Harakchand Vs. Karodimal

Harakchand vs Karodimal

Disposition Revision allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 25, 1957

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/497301

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/497301
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: Dixit, J.
Decided On: Mar 25, 1957
Case Number: Civil Revn. No. 150 of 1957
Subject: Property;Civil
Disposition: Revision allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 1, 2 and 3. 2. The order of the trial Court is clearly wrong and cannot be upheld. The learned trial Judge failed to comprehend the fact that the finding in the previous suit on the question of the plaintiff's genuine necessity for the house existing at the time of the institution of that suit could not on any...

Key legal issue: Property;Civil
Outcome / disposition: Revision allowed
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 11; Madhya Bharat Accommodation Control Act, 1955 - Sections 4

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Harakchand

Advocate M.L. Seth, Adv.

Respondent

Karodimal

Advocate C.S. Chhazed, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 11; Madhya Bharat Accommodation Control Act, 1955 - Sections 4
Reported In: AIR1958MP5

Excerpt

- - 1, 2 and 3. 2. the order of the trial court is clearly wrong and cannot be upheld. the learned trial judge failed to comprehend the fact that the finding in the previous suit on the question of the plaintiff's genuine necessity for the house existing at the time of the institution of that suit could not on any reasoning operate as res judicata in the present case where the basis is the plaintiff's genuine necessity as existing on the date of the subsequent suit......the plaintiff established but rejected the plaintiff's claim for ejectment on the other grounds.relying on the finding in the previous suit on the question of the genuine requirement in respect of the house, the plaintiff made an application to the lower court that as the aforesaid finding in the previous suit would be binding on the parties, therefore, issues nos. 1, 2 and 3 framed in the case covering the same points be deleted. this prayer was granted by the lower court. the defendant has now filed this petition for setting aside the order of the trial court deleting issues nos. 1, 2 and 3.2. the order of the trial court is clearly wrong and cannot be upheld. the learned trial judge failed to comprehend the fact that the finding in the previous suit on the question of the plaintiff's genuine necessity for the house existing at the time of the institution of that suit could not on any reasoning operate as res judicata in the present case where the basis is the plaintiff's genuine necessity as existing on the date of the subsequent suit. when this petition came up for hearing, mr. chhazed, learned counsel for the non-applicant, intervened and frankly and rightly admitted that the principle of res judicata could not be invoked in this case.the order dated 1st february, 1957, of the civil judge, first class, ujjain, is set aside. issues nos. 1, 2 and 3 framed in the suit shall be restored and the parties shall lead their evidence on these issues. there will be no order as to costs of this petition.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Dixit, J.

1. This revision-petition arises out of a suit filed by the non-applicant Karodimal for the ejectment of the petitioner from a house on the ground that the plaintiff needed the premises for his own residence. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed issues as regards the genuine requirement of the plaintiff and the date of the commencement of the tenancy. The plaintiff had previously filed a suit for ejectment on the ground that he needed the premises for own use. In that suit, the trial Court found the genuine necessity of the plaintiff established but rejected the plaintiff's claim for ejectment on the other grounds.

Relying on the finding in the previous suit on the question of the genuine requirement in respect of the house, the plaintiff made an application to the lower Court that as the aforesaid finding in the previous suit would be binding on the parties, therefore, issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 framed in the case covering the same points be deleted. This prayer was granted by the lower Court. The defendant has now filed this petition for setting aside the order of the trial Court deleting issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. The order of the trial Court is clearly wrong and cannot be upheld. The learned trial Judge failed to comprehend the fact that the finding in the previous suit on the question of the plaintiff's genuine necessity for the house existing at the time of the institution of that suit could not on any reasoning operate as res judicata in the present case where the basis is the plaintiff's genuine necessity as existing on the date of the subsequent suit. When this petition came up for hearing, Mr. Chhazed, learned counsel for the non-applicant, intervened and frankly and rightly admitted that the principle of res judicata could not be invoked in this case.

The order dated 1st February, 1957, of the Civil Judge, First Class, Ujjain, is set aside. Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 framed in the suit shall be restored and the parties shall lead their evidence on these issues. There will be no order as to costs of this petition.

Same Parties Harakchand vs Karodimal Same Subject Property;Civil Same Judge Dixit, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 11; Madhya Bha...

Property;Civil