Where an order is made under sub rule 1 dismissing any suit, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action.
The Sub divisional Officer decided the title and declared the appellant as Bhumiswami of the land in dispute and also held that the land was being used for Dussehra Puja by the appellant In pursuance of the application for restoration of possession in view of the aforesaid order dated 19.9.1974, the Tehsildar ordered restoration of possession to the appellant.
Siddhnath, father of the respondent, in the meanwhile filed a civil suit No.259A/1981 for declaration of title and for injunction against the appellant and Rao Nihal Karan much after the expiry of one year from the date of order of Sub Divisional officer dated 19.9.1974.
Background facts in a nutshell as projected by appellant are as follows The present case relates to a land measuring 3.23 acres belonging to the ancestors of Rao NihaI Karan Jamindara Bada Ravala of Indore and later on was a part of a religious and educational trust.
The trial Court vide judgment and order decreed the said suit on 31.1.1997.
The Board of Revenue, vide it order dated 26.8.1982 also dismissed the said revision filed by the father of the respondent.
The appellant also filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of the written statement for inserting very important facts including the fact that the dismissal order dated 17.8.83 of the previous suit make the present suit as number maintainable.
However, the appellant filed some documents and memo of appeal presented by Siddhnath which was allowed to be taken on record.
The Tehsildar on the one hand passed an order seeking clarification from the Board of Revenue about the area of the land and at the same time served a companyy of the appellants application to Sri Siddhanath, father of the Respondent.
The State authorities in companylusion with the respondent filed written statement and admitted that the respondent was in possession since 1950.
Order XI Rule 21 CPC reads as under Order XI.
The suit was thus barred under Section 57 3 of the M.P. Land Revenue Act, 1959 in short the Act .
Siddhanath filed an appeal challenging the order dated 19.9.1974 which was dismissed.
There was numberdispute whatsoever raised about the said land upto 1969.
In the Memorandum of appeal following questions were formulated by the appellant Whether the learned Courts below have number erred in decreeing plaintiff respondents suit?
Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, Siddhnath, father of the respondent filed a revision before the Commissioner Land Revenue which was also dismissed on the ground of limitation.
In the said suit Siddhnath claimed adverse possession against the State of M.P. as will be evident from para 8 of the plaint.
Thereafter the appellant filed an application under Order XIII Rule 10 for proving the Memo of Appeals filed against the order dated 19.9.1974 in which the respondent specifically took the plea that he was in possession on behalf of the appellant.
The respondent was merely a vegetable seller who used to companylect vegetables and fruits from the land on companytract from the trust.
discovery and Inspection.
Whether the plaintiffs claim companyld be decreed without there being any challenge to the decision of the Revenue Authorities for restoration of possession to the appellant?
The appellant, therefore, applied for an order before the Tehsildar.
In pursuance of the said order of the Tehsildar, the Patwari went to the spot and made a report that the place was in possession of the plaintiff respondents father Shri Siddhanath.
No further appeal or revision or any other proceedings against the said order were opted and thus this decision became final under Section 57 of the Act.
Respondent companycealed the institution of his previous suit dated 21.12.1981 as well as the order of its dismissal dated 17.8.83.
Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, Siddhanath, father of respondent filed revision before the Board of Revenue.
An application for adjudication of right and title of the appellant was made before the Sub Divisional Officer, Indore, who was a companypetent authority under Section 57 of the Code.
The father of the respondent did number file the said documents and the said suit was dismissed on 17.8.1983 under Order X1 Rule 21 CPC.
As the appellant is a religious and charitable trust, the trustees companyld number companylect the relevant documents of the ancestors of Zamindara Bada Ravala number companyld timely lead the evidence.
The same was also rejected.
Siddhnath, father of the respondent, number deterred by previous orders, filed present suit without making the appellant or Rao Nihal Karan as a party to the said suit.
The trial Court rejected the said application.
No compliance with order for discovery 1 Where any party fails to companyply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a defendant, to have his defence, if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had number defended, and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the Court for an order to that effect and an order may be made on such application accordingly, after numberice to the parties and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant herein filed first appeal before the Additional District Judge, being First Appeal No.3 of 1997.
Appellant herein who was number made a party, applied for being made a party which was allowed and the appellant was arrayed as Defendant No.3.
Rule 21.
However, in the said suit the appellant filed an application for discovery of documents.
