Supreme Court of India
SHRI RAM PRAKASH versus SMT. CHARAN KAUR AND ANR.
- Decided
- 3 February 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 1 S.C.R. 840 · 1997 INSC 89
- Also cited as
- AIR 1997 SC 3760
- (1997) 9 SCC 543
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, made on September 18, 1996 in Second Appeal No. 215 of 1987. Admittedly, both the petitioner and the respondents had filed civil suits claiming damages against each other. The petitioner's suit was dismissed and the respondents' suit was also dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal filed by the respondents, it was allowed arid was decreed for recovery of Rs. 24,875. The petitioner filed second appeal against the decree which was admitted. However, the petitioner did not carry the matter in second appeal against his suit for damages and was content with filing an appeal against the decree of damages granted against him. The High Court recording the findings has held thus :
p. 840, margin E
"Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid factual as well as legal proposition, it can safely be said that where two connected suits have been tried together and the findings recorded in one of the suit have become final in absence of an appeal, the appeal preferred against the findings recorded in the other suit would definitely be barred by the principles of res judicata. This is the ratio of the above cited case law decided by the apex Court of the country. Thus, there is absolutely no necessity to go into other aspects of the appeal, especially when on factual side, as detailed above, the decree, not appealed against by the present appellant, passed by the first . appellate Court, has become final between the parties, which has created a legal bar for · the maintainability of present appeal
pp. 840–841, margin G
whereby the decree passed in the other suit has been assailed."
p. 841, margin B
It would be obvious that since the claims of the petitioner. and the respondents have arisen from the same cause of action and the finding of the appellate Court that damages had accurred to the respondents due to misfeasance or malfeasance having been allowed to become final, the decree which is subject matter of the special leave petition cannot be assailed. The self-same question was directly in issue and was the subject matter of both the suits. The same having been allowed to become final, it cannot be gone into since the same had attained finality, the petitioner having not filed any appeal against appeal· dismissing the suit. In view of this situation, the High Court was right in concluding that the decree of dismissal .of the suit against the petitioner would operate as res judicata under Section 11 CPC in the appeal against which the petitioner. has filed the second appeal.
p. 841, margin B
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. G.N. Petition dismissed.
p. 841, margin E