• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S.  11, Order 39, Rule 1, 2 - The very same plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for injunction and an application for interim injunction had been dismissed on merits - I found that the suit was later withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit and the dismissal of the interim application on merits ought to be therefore taken as an issue against the plaintiff to deny to him the relief - An interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is not a dismissal of suit on merits - The application of the Section 11 CPC relating to res judicata - Dismissal of the application for injunction could have no bearing to a dismissal of the suit on merits and that too, after withdrawal of the earlier suit with liberty to file a fresh suit which was incidentally the instant suit which is the subject of appeal.  (178) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S.  11 - Admittedly in the present case, parties are the same; cause of action is same and the relief claimed is the same, but the Consumer For a cannot be equated with civil court - CP Act does not provide anywhere that Consumer Fora shall be considered as civil court for the purpose of Section 11 CPC and it cannot be said that the judgments of the Consumer Court are judgments of court concurrent jurisdiction directly upon a point which will result into attraction of the principle of res judicata - Hence, when the matter is decided by the Consumer Fora, the principle of res judicata will not apply to the civil Court - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986). (174) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S.  11 - Res judicata - Jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be deemed to have been excluded in respect of the suit of a person who has earlier approached the Consumer Fora for the same relief under the provisions of CP Act and the principle of res judicata will not apply - The proceedings before the Consumer Fora are summary in nature, as such, cannot be treated as a judgment having all the ingredients of civil court judgment and  decree - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986) S. 3. (174) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S.  11 - Res judicata<D> - Rent Controller is not competent to decide the question of title of the property and can only decide the relationship of landlord and tenant and as such the said findings could not be operated as res judicata .   (182) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S.  11 - Resjudicata - In the previous case when the plaintiff was suing for injunction, the contention was that he had been put in possession of the suit property pursuant to the mortgage and therefore, the validity of mortgage and the claim to possession in respect of the property were substantial and direct issues for consideration and if the Court had held that the mortgage had not been established, it was not merely incidental but it was the requisite issue that the Court had to adjudicate upon for consideration of whether the plaintiff was entitled to relief of injunction or not - All the ingredients of Section 11 namely of the congruity of the document and parties and adjudication on merits - It had become final. (173) P.L.R.
  •  CPC  S. 11 – Res judicata – Writ Petition – Dismissed by single word order i.e. “dismissed” – Would not operate as constructive res judicata – Before a Court invokes rule of res judicata, the Court has to be certain and in a position to return a finding that previous writ petition was dismissed on merits after considering all aspects of the case - It would be unsafe and difficult for the Court to record a finding that the summary dismissal of the writ petition was decision on merits or the writ petition was dismissed on account of delay and laches, or an alternative remedy or the Court did not feel inclined to interfere in a writ jurisdiction - There can be more than one reason to dismiss the writ petition. (2018-2) PLR