9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application for revision of a finding on res judicata in a suit. Analysis: 1. The case involved an application for revision of a finding by the Subordinate Judge that a suit was not barred by res judicata due to a Privy Council decision in a similar suit. The Subordinate Judge allowed the suit to proceed on its merits based on the distinction in facts between the present suit and the earlier Bellary suit. 2. The plaintiff raised a preliminary objection, arguing that revision was not competent for a finding on res judicata. Citing previous court decisions, it was noted that wrong decisions on res judicata were not subject to revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. The applicant contended that the suit should not proceed as it was based on the same cause of action deemed unsustainable by the Privy Council. Various cases were cited to support the argument that interlocutory orders, including findings on issues, were not subject to revision under Section 115. 4. The court emphasized that findings on interlocutory matters, followed by orders, were not considered "cases decided" for the purpose of revision under Section 115. The party aggrieved had the option to appeal the final decree, and the court was bound by the weight of authority in not interfering with such findings. 5. Ultimately, the court held that the finding on res judicata or the order for the case to proceed was not open to revision under Section 115. The rule for revision was discharged with costs, with both judges concurring on the decision. This judgment clarifies the limitations of revision under Section 115 concerning findings on res judicata and highlights the distinction between interlocutory orders and final decisions in the context of legal proceedings.
|
