2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 468
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 187 of 2010 (O&M)
Daya Nand
v.
Risal Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 22/01/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Bar of suit--Resjudicata--Prayer made in suit for declaration and injunction restraining defendants from interfering in possession--This relief was not available to plaintiffs when earlier suit for pre-emption was filed--Second suit could not said to be barred under Order 2, R.2 CPC and under principle of res judicata.
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37--Injunction--Permanent Injunction--Decree of pre-emption was executed and possession given thereof by executing Court to plaintiff which could only be done after pre-emption money was deposited--Specific stand by plaintiff that amount deposited was received by mother of defendant not rebutted--Thus, it cannot be said that pre-emption money was not paid. (P.9)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963, S.6, 7 & 8--Decree against minor--Setting aside of--Limitation--Defendant/appellant had not chosen to challenge decree within three years of attaining majority--Not open to challenge decree passed 20 years back.
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.2, R.2--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.11--Bar of suit--Resjudicata--Prayer made in suit for declaration and injunction restraining defendants from interfering in possession--This relief was not available to plaintiffs when earlier suit for pre-emption was filed--Second suit could not said to be barred under Order 2, R.2 CPC and under principle of res judicata. (P.14)
