Binita Das and 4 Ors v. Hriday Das

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010225362022 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCRP(IO)/264/2022o BINITAoDASoANDo4oORSo W/O-oLATEoDHARMAKANTAoDAS,o R/O-oBELTOLAoTINIALIo(LAKSMINAGAR),o BYoLANEoMANIKANCHANoPATH,o HOUSEoNO.o31,oGUWAHATI-o28,o DISTRICT-oKAMRUP(M),oASSAM. 2:oDHRITIoREKHAoDAS oD/O-oLATEoDHARMAKANTAoDAS o R/O-oBELTOLAoTINIALIo(LAKSMINAGAR) o BYoLANEoMANIKANCHANoPATH o HOUSEoNO.o31 oGUWAHATI-o28 o DISTRICT-oKAMRUP(M) oASSAM. 3:oMAMANIoDAS oW/O-oLATEoBIPULoDAS o R/O-oBASUGAONoTOWN oWARDoNO.o2o(DHANBAZAR) o P.O.oANDoP.S.-oBASUGAON o DISTRICT-oCHIRANG oASSAM. 4:oHIRAKoJYOTIoDASo@oMUNNA oS/O-oLATEoBIPULoDAS o PageoNo.#o2/4 R/O-oBASUGAONoTOWN oWARDoNO.o2o(DHANBAZAR) o P.O.oANDoP.S.-oBASUGAON o DISTRICT-oCHIRANG oASSAM. 5:oDIMPAoDAS oD/O-oLATEoBIPULoDAS o R/O-oBASUGAONoTOWN oWARDoNO.o2o(DHANBAZAR) o P.O.oANDoP.S.-oBASUGAON o DISTRICT-oCHIRANG oASSAMo VERSUSo HRIDAYoDASo S/O-oLATEoBIRENDRAoCHANDRAoDAS,o R/O-oBASUGAONoTOWN,oWARDoNO.o2,o P.O.oANDoP.S.-oBASUGAON,o DISTRICT-oCHIRANG,oASSAM. AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMRoPoUPADHYAYo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oMR.oRoMoCHOUDHURYoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ::kBEFOREk::k HON'BLEkMR.kJUSTICEkPARTHIVJYOTIkSAIKIA kOkkkRkkkDkkkEkkkRk

21.02.2024 o Heard Mr. P. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned counsel representing Page No.# 3/4 the sole respondent.

¶2This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the learned Munsiff, Chirang in Title Suit No.34/2021.

¶3The petitioners claimed before the learned trial court that the suit property in T.S. No.34/2021 is the same as in T.S. No.82/2015. Therefore, the petitioners prayed before the trial court to dispose of the case on the issue of maintainability of the second suit i.e. T.S. No.34/2021.

¶4The trial court held that the suit properties of T.S. No.34/2021 and that of T.S. No.82.2015 are different and therefore, decided the preliminary issue like that.

¶5The learned counsel Mr. Upadhyay vehemently submitted that the suit property of T.S. No.82/2015 is the same as in T.S. No.34/2021.

¶6Mr. Choudhury, on the other hand, submits that the suit properties of both the suits are different.

¶7I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides.

¶8Under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a case can be disposed of on a preliminary issue. Issues that arise in a subsequent suit may either be questions of fact or of law or mixed questions of law and fact. An alteration in the circumstances after the decision in the first suit, will require a trial for the determination of the plea of res judicata if there arises a new fact which has to be proved. However, the plea of res judicata may in an appropriate case be determined as a preliminary Page No.# 4/4 issue when neither a disputed question of fact nor a mixed question of law or fact has to be adjudicated for resolving it.

¶9In the case in hand, the plea, that suit property of T.S. No.34/2021 is the same as in T.S. No.82.2015, is the factual aspect of the case. Therefore, the petitioners have to prove the aforesaid fact in T.S. No.34/2021.

¶10The Issue raised by the petitioners is a mixed question of law and fact. Thus, this issue has to be proved before the learned trial court by way of evidence.

¶11Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds the present Revision Petition devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant