2004 (2) TMI 738 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Appealability of the Trial Court's order under Section 9 of CPC on the ground of res judicata.
2. Applicability of the judgment in Ratan Singh v. Vijaysingh AIR 2001 SC 279.
3. Determination of rights of parties and the nature of the Trial Court's order.

Analysis:

1. Appealability of the Trial Court's order under Section 9 of CPC on the ground of res judicata:
The petitioner challenged the Trial Court's order claiming it was not appealable or revisable. The Court found that the order determining the suit as barred by res judicata falls within the definition of a decree under Section 2(2) of CPC. Referring to the judgment in Ratan Singh v. Vijaysingh AIR 2001 SC 279, the Court clarified that in cases where rights of parties are conclusively determined, the order constitutes a decree and is appealable. As the Trial Court had conclusively decided the matter based on the plea of res judicata, the petitioner was directed to file an appeal before the District Court within 30 days.

2. Applicability of the judgment in Ratan Singh v. Vijaysingh AIR 2001 SC 279:
The judgment in Ratan Singh v. Vijaysingh AIR 2001 SC 279 was cited by the petitioner to argue for the petition's maintainability. However, the Court differentiated the facts of that case, where the rejection of an application for condonation of delay did not amount to a decree as no adjudication of rights had occurred. In contrast, in the present case, the Trial Court had conclusively determined the rights of the parties based on the plea of res judicata, making the order appealable as a decree.

3. Determination of rights of parties and the nature of the Trial Court's order:
The Court analyzed the history of the case, where previous litigation involving the same parties had been adjudicated up to the Apex Court. The petitioner claimed rights through predecessors whose matter had already been decided. The Trial Court found the present suit barred by res judicata, as the matter in controversy had been conclusively determined previously. Consequently, the Trial Court's order was considered a decree and appealable before the District Court. The petitioner was granted 30 days to file an appeal, emphasizing the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy through the appeal process.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner the opportunity to file an appeal within the specified timeframe. The detailed analysis highlighted the appealability of the Trial Court's order, the distinction in the applicability of judgments, and the conclusive determination of rights leading to the order being considered a decree under the CPC.