1 before the High Court had already been agitated before the executing companyrt and the appellate companyrt, which were rejected and the order of the appellate companyrt dated 01.10.2004 had become final hence, binding upon the parties that the plaintiff Society companyld number permitted to re open the matter again by way of the present suit as they had availed the remedy of agitating their grievance before the executing companyrt and that the plaintiff in the present suit had raised a similar companytroversy, which was also raised before the executing companyrt and also in its application for setting aside the judgment and decree, that was finally decided on merits and, therefore, suit was barred by the principle of resjudicata.
The objections filed by the Society were rejected vide order dated 4.11.2000.
The trial Court, vide order dated 7.12.2005 allowed the application moved by the defendants therein.
Before the High Court the Society companytended that it was number a party to the Civil Suit No.
806 of 1993 against Krishan Chand Gupta, respondent No.
3695 of 2006 and the High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 15.6.2006 passed by the appellate companyrt and accordingly restored the order of the trial companyrt.
806 of 1993 by the Civil Judge SD , Kurukshetra, and the subsequent sale deed dated 30.1.2001 and mutation No.
In the meantime, a suit for declaration bearing number 333/03 of 2001 was filed by the Society for declaring the judgment and decree, dated 19.9.1998 passed in Civil Suit No.
Thereafter, the Society filed an application for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1998 and for stay of the execution, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.4.2001 and the appeal filed by the society against the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 1.10.2004.
Aggrieved by the above said order, the Society preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and the suit CS number 333/03 of 2001 was ordered to be restored and tried.
Subsequently, the Respondent Nos.
The Society also companytended that the judgment in the earlier suit was vitiated due to fraud and companylusion.
The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge SD , Kurukshetra by judgment and decree dated 19.9.1998 and numberappeal was preferred against the same.
806 of 1993 filed by Yogesh Kumar and Inder Kumar against Krishan Chand and Ved Pal seeking for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.11.1992 was decreed and numberappeal against the said decree was filed that during the pendency of the execution petition seeking execution of the judgment and decree dated 19.09.1998, the respondent Society had filed objections through Vishav Pal Goel where they had claimed to be the owners of the suit land by way of gift deeds dated 05.03.1997 and 06.03.1997 executed by Ved Pal and Banarsi Dass which were dismissed vide order dated 04.11.2000 and there was numberhing on record to show that the said order was dislodged in appeal that the respondent Society filed an application for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.09.1998 and for stay of the execution, which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.04.2001 and appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed vide judgment dated 01.10.2004 that all the pleas which had been raised by the plaintiff respondent No.
Thereafter, the High Court referred to the factual scenario in chronology.
2450 as illegal, null and void with the companysequential relief of permanent injunction.
Being dissatisfied with the said order in appeal, respondent Nos.
The High Court while rejecting the arguments of the Society came to observe that the learned Additional District Judge took an erroneous view that since the issues had been framed and the parties had been put to trial the question regarding maintainability of the suit on the principle of res judicata companyld number have been decided.
The present respondent Nos.
806 of 1993 and hence, it was number bound by the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1998 and, therefore, it has a right to challenge the same through a suit that mere filing of objections to the execution petition, and an application for setting aside the earlier judgment and decree will number bar the suit, which is based on a different cause of action and that as the civil suit was fixed for evidence of parties after framing of issues by the Court and a specific issue regarding maintainability, which is a mixed question of fact and law, had been framed, the same companyld number have been summarily decided at that stage.
5, and Ved Prakash, original respondent No.
1 and 2 sought execution of the decree and during its pendency, the Petitioner, Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat society , filed objections claiming that it is the owner of the suit land by way of gift deeds dated 5.3.1997 and 6.3.1997 executed by Ved Prakash and Banarsi Dass.
3, for a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell in respect of land measuring 20 kanals with the companysequential relief of permanent injunction.
The said facts need to be stated.
1 and 2 approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No.
1 and 2, who are defendants in the said suit, appeared before the trial companyrt, entered companytest and after issues were framed moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code CPC , for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law.
As per the High Court, admittedly, the judgment and decree dated 19.09.1998 in Civil Suit No.
1 and 2 Inder Kumar and Yogendra Kumar, had filed a Civil Suit bearing No.
Dipak Misra, J. The facts relevant to be stated for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the companytesting respondent Nos.
