Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pramod Kumar Jain vs Municipal Corporation, Vidisha on 25 July, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16794
1 S.A. No.1425 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 25th OF JULY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1425 of 2022
PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIDISHA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri N.K. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri Saket Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Shri Anil Sharma and Shri K.K.Prajapti, Advocates for respondent
No.1.
Shri Santosh Agrawal and Shri J.S.Kaurav, Advocate for respondent
Nos. 4,5 and 6.
JUDGMENT
This second appeal, under Section 100 of CPC, has been filed against
the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2021 passed by Second Additional
District Judge, Vidisha in RCA No. 12A of 2011, as well as, against order
dated 07.03.2009 passed by I Civil Judge Class II, Vidisha in Civil Suit No.
132A/08.
2. It is a case where the appellant and his predecessors are not ready to
accept the judgment passed by the Courts and they are out and out to waste
the valuable time of the Court in spite of the fact that on multiple occasions
their suits have been dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC after applying the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/12/2025
10:19:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16794
2 S.A. No.1425 of 2022
principle of res judicata.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that the
appellants filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in
respect of Survey No. 1042/2007 (New No. 3532), situated at New Hospital
Road, Vidisha. It was the case of the appellant/plaintiffs that they are in
possession of the property from the year 1965. Proceedings were initiated by
Municipal Council, Vidisha under Section 223 and 187 of the Municipal
Corporation Act before the Court of ADM, Vidisha, which was lost by the
Municipal Council, Vidisha. However, in utter violation of the order passed
by the ADM, Municipal Council Vidisha is interfering with the peaceful
possession of plaintiffs and have surrounded the plot by wire fencing and
accordingly suit was filed seeking decree against respondent No. 1 for
declaration of title, as well as, for permanent injunction and mandatory
injunction to the effect that the fencing done by respondent No. 1 be
removed.
It appears that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 filed an application under Order
1 Rule 10 CPC. The said application was allowed by the trial court. An
application was filed by the appellant/plaintiffs under Section 10 of the CPC
to the effect that newly impleaded defendants had also filed a suit against the
plaintiffs as well as Municipal Council in respect of the same subject matter,
which was registered as Civil Suit No. 61A/2002, and by judgment and
decree dated 07.08.2003 the suit filed by the newly impleaded defendants was
decreed. Against the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs had filed Civil
Appeal No. 4A of 2004 and Civil Appeal No. 5A of 2004, which were
allowed by the appellate court by judgment and decree dated 30.06.2005 and
judgment and decree dated 07.08.2003 passed by the trial court was set aside
and the matter was remanded back with the direction that the legal
representative of Chironjilal be substituted and in case if they want to file
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/12/2025
10:19:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16794
3 S.A. No.1425 of 2022
written statement then the said opportunity may be granted and the case shall
be heard finally. It was pleaded that against that judgment and decree dated
30.06.2005 passed by the appellate court, Second Appeal No. 725/2005 is
pending before the High Court and therefore it was pleaded that since the
subject matter of both the suits is the same and parties are also same,
therefore, in order to avoid any conflict of judgement, it would be appropriate
to stay the proceedings of the present suit.
Similarly, newly impleaded defendants also filed an application under
Section 11 of CPC that the appellant/plaintiffs have moved an application
under Section 10 of the CPC on the ground of pendency of Second Appeal
No. 725/2005. The second appeal was decided by order dated 04.03.2008 and
the matter was remanded back to the appellate Court and after the remand,
civil appeals which were earlier registered as 4/2004 and 5/2004 were
renumbered as 8-A/2008 and 9-A/2008, have been dismissed. Under these
circumstances, it was submitted that the title of newly impleaded defendants
has already been decided, therefore the present suit is barred by principle of
res judicata.
It appears that appellants did not press their application filed under
Section 10 of the CPC. However, the trial court by order dated 07.03.2009
allowed the application filed under Section 11 of the CPC and dismissed the
suit filed by the plaintiffs on the ground of res judicata.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, appellants
preferred an appeal which was registered as RCA No. 12-A/2011. The said
civil appeal was allowed by Second Additional District Judge, Vidisha by
judgement dated 06.04.2011 and the matter was remanded back to the trial
court. Against the judgment dated 06.04.2011 passed by the appellate Court,
defendants preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 995 of 2011, which was
allowed by this Court by order dated 03.07.2019 and the order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/12/2025
10:19:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16794
4 S.A. No.1425 of 2022
06.04.2011 passed by the appellate court was set aside and the appellate
Court was directed to decide the question of res judicata on the basis of
material which is available on record. After remand, the appellate court has
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the suit filed by
appellant is barred by principle of res judicata.
4. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, it
is submitted by counsel for appellant that it is well-established principle of
law that question of res judicata is not covered by application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC because the question is dependent on multifaceted aspects
including legal as well as factual, and accordingly relied upon the judgement
passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Pandurangan Vs. T.Jayarama
Chettiar and another decided on 14.07.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No.
7743 of 2025, Kuldeep Singh Pathania vs Bikram Singh Jaryal reported in
(2017)5 SCC 345 and Sathyanath & Anr. vs. Sarojamani reported in
(2022) 7 SCC 644.
5. Per Contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for
respondents. It is submitted that earlier also a similar suit was filed by the
plaintiffs and the said suit was dismissed on the ground of res judicata. The
matter travelled up to the High Court and the High Court by judgment and
decree dated 22.08.2006 passed in Second Appeal No. 321 of 1998 had held
that the suit filed by appellant in respect of same subject matter is barred by
principle of res judicata. It is submitted that therefore the appellate Court did
not commit any mistake by dismissing the suit on the ground of res judicata,
thereby affirming the order passed by the trial court.
6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is true that principle of res judicata involves questions of fact as well
as law, and therefore, in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11 CP, the said
aspect cannot be considered and decided. But in the present case, the facts are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/12/2025
10:19:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16794
5 S.A. No.1425 of 2022
completely different and it shows misuse of lawful authority of the Courts by
appellant or his predecessors.
8. After the matter was remanded by this Court by order dated 3.7.2019 in
M.A. No. 995 of 2011, the defendants had filed an application under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC. By the impugned judgment, the aforesaid application was
allowed, and certified copies of the documents filed by the appellants were
taken on record. Along with the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27
CPC, defendants had also filed copies of the plaint filed by appellants which
was registered as Civil Suit No. 38-A/1994. The said civil suit was filed
against Municipal Council, Vidisha as well as Smt. Parvati Bai, widow of
Brijbhushan Lal, and Kuldeep, son of Brij Bhushan Lal. In that case also, it
was pleaded that defendants therein are interfering with Survey No. 1042/7
and accordingly it was prayed that appellants, who are plaintiffs in Civil Suit
No. 38-A/94, be declared as Bhumiswami of Survey Nos. 1042/7 renumbered
as 3532, 3533, and 3538. The said civil suit was dismissed by II Civil Judge,
Class II, Vidisha, by order dated 11.7.1997 on the ground of res judicata.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.7.1997 passed by II Civil Judge, Class
II, Vidisha in RCSA No. 38-A/94, appellant/plaintiffs preferred appeal which
was registered as Civil Appeal No. 1A/98. The said appeal was dismissed by
II Additional District Judge, Vidisha, by judgment dated 3.4.1998, and it was
held that the suit was instituted by the predecessors of appellant, which was
registered as Civil Suit No. 182-A/66, and it was decreed in favour of Brij
Bhushan Lal. The said proceedings had attained finality upto the stage of
High Court, and therefore, it was held that the suit is barred by the principle
of res judicata. It appears that being aggrieved by the judgment and decree
dated 3.4.1998 passed by II Additional District Judge, Vidisha in RCA No.
1A of 1998, appellant/plaintiffs preferred Second Appeal No. 321 of 1998
was dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court by judgment dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/12/2025
10:19:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16794
6 S.A. No.1425 of 2022
22.8.2006, and it was held as under:
“7. Both the courts below on the basis of material that came on
record have found that earlier Dr. Chirjilal predecessor-in-title of
the plaintiff was proceeded against and against him a suit no.
182/66 was filed in the court of Civil Judge Class II, Vidisha. In
the said suit the matter in issue directly and substantially was as to
whether Chirjilal is Bhumiswami of land bearing Khasra no.
1042/7 and in possession or not? The said suit was decreed on
10.7.1970 and it has been held in the said suit that it is not
established that Chirjilal is Bhumiswami of land bearing a Khasra
no. 1042/7. Against this judgment and decree Chirjilal preferred
F.A.No.5-A/1978 which was dismissed on 26.7.1980 and
thereafter a Second Appeal was filed before this court being
S.A.283/80 which was also dismissed on 16.12.1991. It has been
concurrently held by both the courts that even though in the earlier
suit decided on 10.7.70 the relief claimed was with regard to
declaration of right over the land but in the said suit a specific
issue was framed as to whether Chirjilal is owner of the suit
property bearing Khasra no.1042/7 and finding recorded is against
Chirjilal. It has been held by both the courts that once it is found
that Chirjilal is not owner of the property bearing survey
no.1042/7 and is not Bhumiswami of the same, the said finding
operates as resjudicata in all the subsequent proceedings. This
finding recorded concurrently by both the courts is a proper
finding and I find no error in the same. Accordingly, the first
question framed has to be answered by holding that the courts
below have not committed any error in dismissing the plaintiffs
suit holding it to be barred by the principles of resjudicata.
Plaintiff themselves in their claim have mentioned the fact of filing
of these appeals and, therefore, no further pleadings in this regard
was necessary.”
9. Undisputedly, the judgment passed in Second Appeal No. 321 of 1998
has attained finality. Thus, the appellate court came to a conclusion that not
only the parties were common in Civil Suit No. 38-A/1994 but the subject
matter was also the same and the issue was directly and substantially
involved in the previously decided case, and therefore, the present suit is
barred by the principle of res judicata.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/12/2025
10:19:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16794
7 S.A. No.1425 of 2022
10. It appears that Chiraunjilal, who is predecessor of appellant, had filed
Civil Suit No. 182-A/1966 for declaration of title and injunction against Brij
Bhushan Lal, but the said civil suit was dismissed by holding that disputed
property is part of Survey No. 1042/6 and not Survey No. 1042/7. The said
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was affirmed up to the stage of
High Court. Thereafter, the respondents filed a suit under Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act which was decreed by II Civil Judge, Class I, Vidisha, by
judgment and decree dated 13.5.2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2005,
and the decree for possession was granted in favour of respondent Nos 2-7
who were plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 14-A of 2005. The judgment and decree
passed in the said case was put to challenge by the appellant/plaintiffs by
filing Civil Revision No. 70/2010, which has been dismissed by this Court by
order dated 22.7.2025, which reads as under:-
The Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against
judgment and decree dated 13.05.2005 passed by IInd Civil Judge,
Class I, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2005, by which a decree for
possession has been granted in favor of plaintiffs/respondents.
2. It is the case of petitioners/defendants that respondents/plaintiffs
filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession
of property shown in the map attached with the plaint as A, B, C, D,
E. In the plaint, it was pleaded that property in dispute is shown in
the map from O to T. The said property was ancestral property of
plaintiffs, which is part of Survey No. 1042/6. Towards this gali,
there is a main door of the house and several windows, ventilations
are opening, and in the area A, B, C, E, there is a pipeline of
plaintiffs. It was also pleaded that the land bearing Survey No.
1042/6, total area 13 biswa, was owned and possessed by Mubarak
Ali, who executed a Patta dated 14.04.1941 in favor of Bankelal and
Brijbhushanlal, father and son, and possession was handed over.
Patta was accepted by Bankelal and Brijbhushanlal. Brijbhushanlal
died in the year 1975, whereas Bankelal had already died prior
thereto. In the plaint, it was pleaded that on 09.03.1976, there was a
marriage in the family of plaintiffs and all the family members were
busy in the marriage, and taking advantage of that, defendant started
construction in the gali shown as A, B, C, E, and on 10.03.1976,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/12/2025
10:19:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16794
8 S.A. No.1425 of 2022
construction was raised by defendant. It was also pleaded that in
Civil Suit No. 182-A/1966, filed by Chironjilal against
Brijbhushanlal, it was held that disputed land is part of Survey No.
1042/6 and not part of Survey No. 1042/7. The judgment passed in
Civil Suit No. 182-A/1966 was affirmed by the High Court, and
accordingly, a suit for possession was filed under Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act.
3. A written statement was filed by petitioners/defendants and plaint
averments were denied.
4. Learned Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence,
decreed the suit filed by plaintiffs, and defendants/petitioners have
been directed to remove the construction, failing which an authority
was granted to plaintiffs to get the construction removed.
5. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 13.05.2005,
petitioners filed Civil Appeal No. 56-A/2005 before Ist Additional
District Judge, Vidisha. By order dated 04.07.2005, the appeal was
admitted for final hearing, and interim relief was granted, and effect
and operation of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court
was stayed. However, on an objection raised by respondents to the
effect that since a decree has been granted under Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act, therefore, civil appeal under Section 96 of CPC
is not maintainable, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as not
maintainable by order dated 23.04.2010. Accordingly, the civil
revision has been filed.
6. Challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts
below, it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that since there was
a pleading with regard to ownership of the land, and an issue was
also framed by the Trial Court, therefore the suit under Section 6 of
the Specific Relief Act was not maintainable. The construction of
petitioners was old construction, and on 09.03.1976, no construction
was done. The Trial Court has recorded a wrong finding that
construction was raised recently. Even the statement of Jagannath
Singh, Commissioner (PW-3), was wrongly accepted by the Trial
Court because in paragraph 3, he had admitted that at the time of
inspection, Dr. Chironjilal, and Pradeep were not present. No
document with regard to notice/intimation to Chironjilal and
Pradeep was submitted by the Commissioner, and therefore, as the
Commissioner’s report was an ex parte report drawn in the absence
of Chironjilal and Pradeep, therefore, it was not admissible. It is
further submitted that even otherwise, property in dispute is
different from the property which was the subject matter of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/12/2025
10:19:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16794
9 S.A. No.1425 of 2022
previous suit. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed in the
previously instituted suit was not applicable to the present case.
7. Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for
respondents.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Before considering the facts of this case, this Court would like to
observe that proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act
are of summary in nature and are of urgent nature.
10. In the present case, the suit was filed on 31.03.1976. Fourty-nine
long years have passed and still the matter has not come to an end.
Although 31.03.1976 is the date of institution of this suit, but this is
not the beginning of the litigation. One more suit was filed in the
year 1966 in which it was held that construction is on Survey No.
1042/6 and not 1042/7 and it attained finality up to the stage of High
Court. Thus, it can be said that the litigation is pending for the last
Fifty-nine years, and now, it is being decided. According to this
court, this is the best example of “justice delayed is justice denied.”
11. So far as the contention of petitioners that subject matter of this
suit was not the subject matter of previously instituted suit which
was instituted in the year 1966, is concerned, the same is
misconceived and cannot be accepted. In paragraph 11 of the written
statement, defendants/petitioners had pleaded as under:
“वादीगण के मुकाबले प्रतिवादी का दावा क्र. १८२एx६६
ई.द. पुरव से विचाराधीन है व माननीय हायकोरट में प्र.क्र.
७७x७३ सिविल रिवीजन के रूप में पेडिंग है, इसकारण
यह दावा धारा १०सी. पी. सी. के तेहत चलने योग् य नही है।”
12. If defendants/petitioners were of the view that subject matter of
the present suit is different from the subject matter of the previous
suit, which was instituted by defendants, then they should not have
taken the plea of Section 10 of CPC. The plea taken by
defendants/petitioners in paragraph 11 of their written statement
clearly shows that even according to defendants, subject matter of
both the suits is same.
13. So far as the contention of petitioners/defendants that no
construction was raised in the year 1976, but it was already in
existence much prior thereto is concerned, the same is
misconceived. Pramod Jain (DW1) is an advocate by profession. In
paragraph 2 of his examination-in chief itself, he had stated that
foundation was laid down by his father in the year 1965-66.
Construction was started, but thereafter it was stopped. It was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/12/2025
10:19:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16794
10 S.A. No.1425 of 2022
further stated by Pramod Jain (DW1) that the construction was
restarted in the month of February 1976. Thus, it is clear that even
defendant Pramod Jain (DW1), has admitted that construction was
raised in the month of February 1976.
14. Although counsel for petitioners tried to wriggle out of this
admission made by Pramod Jain (DW1) in paragraph 2 of his
examination-in-chief by submitting that a stray statement by a
witness will not decide the fate of the case, but it is sufficient to
mention here that Pramod Jain (DW1) is an advocate by profession
and he knows about the niceties of law. Furthermore, it is not a
statement made during the course of cross-examination. It is a
conscious statement made by Pramod Jain (DW1) in his
examination-in-chief itself, therefore, it cannot be said to be a stray
statement made by a witness who has no experience of appearing
before the Court. Furthermore, in paragraph 16 of his cross-
examination, this witness has denied for want of knowledge that a
dispute had arisen between the parties and the SDM had directed
that till further orders, no attempt should be made to interfere with
the peaceful possession of Brijbhushan. He also denied for want of
knowledge that the aforesaid order was challenged by defendants by
filing a revision before the Court of ADJ and that the revision was
dismissed. The witness was shown the order dated 26.11.1966
passed by the SDM in Case No. 79/1966. Accordingly, the order
dated 26.11.1966 was exhibited as Exhibit P9. Thus, it is clear that
Pramod Jain (DW1) had admitted very categorically that the
construction was raised in the month of February 1976.
15. That is not the end of the matter. Udham Singh Kushwaha
(DW2) was examined on 15.11.2000. In paragraph 2 of his
examination-in-chief, he has stated that about 20 to 25 years back,
he had seen the foundation which was laid down by Dr. Chironjilal,
and thereafter Dr. Chironjilal has constructed the rooms over the
said foundation. Since this witness was examined on 15.11.2000,
therefore, if his evidence in paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief
is considered, then it is clear that he must have seen the foundation
constructed by Chironjilal sometimes in the year 1975-80. It is his
case that thereafter Chironjilal raised construction over the
foundation which was seen by him. Therefore, if the evidence of
Udham Singh Kushwaha (DW2) is considered, then it is clear that
the evidence led by Pramod Jain (DW1), and the evidence led by
Udham Singh Kushwaha (DW2), are on similar lines. Thus, it is
held that defendants had started raising construction in the month of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/12/2025
10:19:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16794
11 S.A. No.1425 of 2022
February 1976, and therefore, the suit filed under Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act was maintainable.
16. The question as to whether land in dispute is a part of Survey
Number 1042/6 or 1042/7 is concerned, the same has already been
adjudicated by the Court of competent jurisdiction in Civil Suit No.
182-A/1966, which was instituted by Dr. Chironjilal/father of
Pramod Jain (DW1).
17. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it
is held that the question whether the property in dispute was a part
of Survey Number 1042/6, or 1042/7 has already been finally
adjudicated in a previously instituted Civil Suit No. 182-A/1966,
and in view of the specific pleading taken by Dr. Chironjilal in
paragraph 11 of his written statement, it is clear that present
construction has been raised over Survey Number 1042/6.
18. In view of the categorical admissions made by Pramod Jain
(DW1), and the evidence of Udham Singh Kushwaha (DW2), it is
clear that the construction was raised sometimes in the month of
February 1976 and onwards, i.e., after losing the case from the High
Court. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court did not commit
any mistake by allowing the application/suit filed by plaintiffs under
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
19. Furthermore, in exercise of power under Section 115 of CPC,
this Court has a very limited scope of jurisdiction. This Court is
only required to consider as to whether the Trial Court has exercised
its jurisdiction properly or not. This civil revision cannot be decided
like an appeal. Even otherwise, this Court has already considered
the pleadings as well as evidence led by defendants, and
accordingly, it is held that the Trial Court did not commit any
mistake by decreeing the suit
20. Ex consequenti, the judgment and decree dated 13.5.2005,
passed by IInd Civil Judge, Class I, Vidisha in Civil Suit No.
14-A/2005, is hereby affirmed.
21. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed.”
11. Therefore, the litigation which started in the year 1966 is still
continuing in the year 2025, and parties are not leaving any stone unturned to
waste the valuable time of the Court as well as their own valuable time. The
decree for possession has already been passed against the appellant which has
been affirmed by this Court by order dated 22.7.2025 passed in Civil
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/12/2025
10:19:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16794
12 S.A. No.1425 of 2022
Revision No. 70/2010. Unfortunately, that part of the order was not touched
by counsel for appellant. However, as Civil Revision No. 70/2010 was also
recently decided by this Court by order dated 22.7.2025, therefore, it was in
the memory of this Court.
12. Be that whatever it may be.
13. The crux of the matter is that the suit for similar relief which was filed
by appellant/plaintiffs and was registered as Civil Suit No. 38-A/1984 was
dismissed on the ground of principle of res judicata. The said order was
affirmed by the appellate Court by judgment dated 3.4.1998 passed in RCA
No. 1A/1998, and the judgment passed by the appellate Court in RCA No.
1A/1998 was affirmed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 321/1998.
14. Furthermore, the appellant/plaintiffs themselves had filed an
application under Section 10 of the CPC for stay of further proceedings on
the ground that the dispute is already pending before the High Court in M.A.
No. 725/2005. It is the case of respondents that M.A. No. 725/2005 was
allowed and the matter was remanded back to the appellate Court, and the
civil appeals which were earlier registered as 4/2004 and 5/2004 were
renumbered as 8-A/2008 and 9-A/2008, and by judgment and decree dated
15.9.2008 passed by III Additional District Judge, Vidisha, the said appeals
were dismissed. It is not out of place to mention here that being aggrieved by
the judgment and decree dated 15.9.2008 passed by III Additional District
Judge, Vidisha in Civil Appeal Nos. 8-A/2008 and 9-A/2008, appellants
preferred Second Appeal No. 564/2008, and Coordinate Bench of this Court
by judgment dated 29.8.2019 observed as under:
“29. Similarly, one more litigation was preferred by the
predecessors and family members of the defendants on alleged
pretext in respect of Survey No.1042/7, but the same was
dismissed vide order dated 11/7/1977, on an application made by
the present plaintiffs (respondent herein) under Section 11 ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/12/2025
10:19:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1679413 S.A. No.1425 of 2022
Cr.P.C treating it as res-judicata. The said order dated 11/7/1977
was confirmed in civil regular appeal vide judgment dated
03/04/1988 (Ex.P-23) and the said order has been affirmed upto
this Court in S.A. No.321/1998 judgment dated 22/08/2006, thus,
it is clear that on more than two occasions, through different
proceedings, present appellant tried to disturb the title and
possession of the plaintiffs but failed. All these aspects have been
taken into account by the trial Court and passed the judgment and
decree in favour of the plaintiff.”
15. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the trial Court did not commit any mistake by holding that the suit filed by
the appellant/plaintiffs is barred by the principle of res judicata.
16. As no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal,
accordingly, judgment and decree dated 19.02.2021 passed by Second
Additional District Judge, Vidisha in RCA No. 12-A of 2011, as well as,
against order dated 07.03.2009 passed by I Civil Judge Class II, Vidisha in
Civil Suit No. 132A/08 are, hereby, affirmed.
17. Appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed with a cost of ₹25,000 to be
deposited by the appellant in the Registry of this Court within a period of one
month from today, failing which, the Principal Registrar of this Court shall
not only initiate proceedings for recovery of cost but shall also register a case
under the Contempt of Courts Act.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
(and)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/12/2025
10:19:06 AM
[ad_1]
Source link