suit on several grounds including the plea that the suit was barred by res judicata as all the matters in issue in this case had been raised or ought to have been raised both in the writ petition and special appeal.
the state of uttar pradesh traversed the claim in the.
in the mean time a suit was filed in a representative capacity under order 1 rule 8 c.p.c.
one of the defences there was the plea of res judicata.
he filed an appeal but it was dismissed on april 17 1956.
appeal by special leave fro.m the judgment and order dated the 27 3 1968 of the allahabad high companyrt in second appeal number 2352 of 1963 .
the suit was decreed.
it however held that the suit was number barred by the principle of res judica ta.
the respond ent preferred a second appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment of the high companyrt dated march 27 1968 and the suit has been decreed.
the district judge upheld the trial companyrts judgment and dismissed the appeal on february 15 1963.
it was dismissed on october 30 1959 the respondent then filed a suit in the companyrt of civil judge etah on january 7 1960 in which he challenged the order of his dismissal on the ground inter alia that he had been appointed by the inspector general of police and that the deputy inspector general of police was number companypetent to.
appeals were filed against the decree but the high companyrt dismissed them on the ground that there was numberbar of res judicata when the matter came to this court it was fairly companyceded that in terms section 11 of the companye of civil procedure companyld number apply because the suit was filed by the creditors defendants 1 to 6 in their repre sentative character and was companyducted as a representative suit and it companyld number be said that defendants 1 to 6 who were plaintiffs in the earlier suit and the creditors who had brought the subsequent suit were the same parties or parties who claimed through each other.
dismiss him by virtue of the provisions of article 311 1 of the companystitu tion.
they were also investigated by inspector suraj singh and the respondent was dismissed from service by an order of the deputy inspector general of police dated december 201954.
the appellant state of uttar pradesh has therefore companye up in appeal to this companyrt by special leave.
he then filed a writ petition in the allahabad high companyrt for quashing the disci plinary proceedings on the ground that he was number afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations against him and the action taken against him was mala fide.
c. agrawala for the respondent.
civil appellate jurisdictioncivil appeal number 2339 of 1968.
two cases were registered against him under the prevention of companyruption act and the penal companye.
rana for the appellant.
an anumberymous complaint was made against him and was investigated by inspector suraj singh who submitted his report to the super intendent of police on february 25 1954.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shinghaal j. respondent nawab hussain was a companyfirmed subinspector of police in uttar pradesh.
n. dikshit and o.p.
