9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Res judicata 2. Estoppel 3. Admissibility of evidence under Section 92 of the Evidence Act 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure Detailed Analysis: 1. Res Judicata: The primary issue was whether the consent decree in suit No. 149 of 1960 barred defendants Nos. 5 and 6 from contesting the nature of the document dated November 27, 1954, as a lease. The Court of Small Causes initially held that the consent decree did not decide that the transaction was a lease and allowed questions regarding the nature of the agreement to be asked during cross-examination. The High Court, however, concluded that the consent decree created a bar of res judicata, preventing the reopening of the issue. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that a consent decree does not operate as res judicata because it is merely a record of a contract between the parties, not an adjudication by the Court. 2. Estoppel: The second issue was whether defendants Nos. 5 and 6 were estopped from leading evidence or questioning the nature of the agreement due to the consent decree. The trial court allowed the defendants to question the nature of the agreement, but the High Court ruled that the consent decree estopped the defendants from contesting the issue. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to make such a finding in a revision application, as the trial court had not yet decided on the issue of estoppel. 3. Admissibility of Evidence under Section 92 of the Evidence Act: The third issue concerned whether evidence regarding the nature of the agreement could be excluded under Section 92 of the Evidence Act. The trial court allowed the evidence, stating that the agreement was not clear enough to exclude oral evidence of surrounding circumstances. The Supreme Court did not directly address this issue but implied that the trial court's decision to allow the evidence was within its jurisdiction. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The final issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to revise the trial court's order. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 115 is limited to cases where the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. The Supreme Court found that the trial court had not decided any issues at the stage of recording evidence and that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by making findings on issues not yet decided by the trial court. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit, emphasizing that the trial court should rectify the form of issues Nos. 11, 12, and 13. The Court also recommended that the trial court expedite the hearing and disposal of the suit. Filmistan was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
|
