UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY
STUDIES
SCHOOL OF LAW
B.Com LLB
SEMESTER – 4
ACADEMIC YEAR: 2017-2018
SESSION: JANUARY – MAY
CASE COMMENT ON:
SHEODAN SINGH VS Smt. DARYO KUNWAR
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
UNDER THE SUPRVISION OF: Miss. AMITA
ISHANK RANJAN
SAP ID: 500055540
ROLL NO.: R129816039
CASE SUMMARY
The civil judge ended that suit which was filed:
Accordingly, in the order that the decision in both the earlier couple of appeals which is dismissed by court-
1. i). The title to ownership of property was not directly and substantially in issue in Suits Nos. 77
and 91;
ii). That the Court of the Munsif could not try the title Suit No. 37 of 1950;
iii). That it cannot be said that appeals arising Sout of Suits Nos.: 77 and 91 were former suits and
as such the decision therein would be Res Judicata;
iv). That it cannot be said that the two appeals for Suits Nos.: 77 and 91 which were dismissed by
the High Court, one on the ground of limitation and the other in the ground of not printing the
records, were heard and finally decided.
2. We reject the co contention that issues as to title were not directly and substantially in issue in suits
numbers 77 and 91.
3. Though SUIT no. 77 and 91 were filed in the Munsif’s Court, they were transferred to the Court of
the Additional Civil Judge and were decided by him.
4. The contention that the Munsif before whom Nos. 77 and 91, could not try the subsequent Suit No.
37 has no force in the circumstances of the present litigation.
5. It is urged that the two appeals arising out of Suit Nos. 77 and 91 had not been heard and finally
decided by the High Court, and so the condition that the former suit must have been head and finally
decided was not satisfied in the present case.
6. To hold the otherwise would make Res Judicata impossible in cases where the trial court decides
the matter on merits but the appeal court dismisses the appeal on some preliminary ground
confirming the decision of the trial court on merits.
7. We are of opinion that where a decision is given on the merits by the trial court and the matter is
taken in appeal and the appeal is dismissed in some preliminary ground, like limitation or default
in printing, it must be held that such dismissal when it confirms the decision of the trial court on
merits itself amount to the appeal being heard and finally decided on the merits whatever may be
the ground for the dismissal of the appeal.
8. The fact in the case were very difficult from the facts in the present case , for the very decision of
the appeal court showed that nothing had been decided in that case and the decree of the trial court
on the merits was not confirmed.
• In case before us through the decision of the High Court was on a preliminary point the decision, on the
merits of the trial court was confirmed and that makes the decision of the High Court res judicata.
• The final court of appeal refused to determine the issue of fraud and dismissed the suit on another ground.
• It was held that the issue raised by the defence was not res judicata since the matter has not been finally
decided by the final Court of appeal.
• The result of the decision of the High Court in dismissing the appeal arising from Suits Nos. 77 and 91 is
to confirm the judgement of the trial court on all the issues which were common and it must be held that
the High Court's decision does amount to the appeals being heard and finally decided.
• The facts of the case were entirely different and do not help the appellant.
• A consideration of the cases cited on behalf of the appellant shows that most of them are not exactly in
point so far as the facts of the present case are concerned.
• the result of the decision of the appeal court is to confirm the decision of the trial court given on merits,
and if that is so, the decision of the appeal court will be res judicata whatever may be the reason for
dismissal.
• It would be a different matter where the decision of the appeal court does not result in the confirmation of
the decision of the trial court given on the merits, as for example, where the appeal court holds that the trial
court had no jurisdiction and dismisses the appeal even though the trial court might have dismissed the suit
on the merits.)
• 23. We dismiss the appeals with costs, one set of hearing fee.
