Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Kaur vs Renu Kaur on 11 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5874
1 CR-195-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 195 of 2025
SURENDRA KAUR
Versus
RENU KAUR
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Maheshwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta Senior Advocate with Shri Kritika Mohta - Advocate
for the respondent.
ORDER
This civil revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. has been filed against
the order dated 15/07/2021 passed by Third Civil Judge Class II, Guna,
District Guna in RCSA No.48/2014 by which an application filed by
applicant under Section 11 of C.P.C. for dismissal of counter-claim has been
rejected.
2. It is the case of applicant that father of applicant namely Late Sardar
Karam Singh had filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction, which was registered as RCS No.4A/2017. The said civil suit was
dismissed by judgment and decree dated 06/05/2017 passed by Fourth
Additional District Judge, Guna by holding that father of applicant is not the
owner of house in dispute. It is submitted that now, applicant has filed a suit
for eviction against the respondent. A counter-claim was filed by respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5874
2 CR-195-2025
claiming declaration of title to the effect that being legal representative of
late Sardar Karam Singh, she has a joint ownership of the property in
dispute.
3. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that since, the suit filed by
father of applicant was already dismissed and it was held that Sardar Karam
Singh is not owner of property in dispute, therefore, respondent would not
inherit any property which was not owned by her father specifically when the
judgment and decree dated 06/05/017 was passed in RCS No.4A/2017 with a
clear finding that applicant is owner of property in dispute. Therefore, it is
submitted that the counter-claim filed by respondent was barred by principle
of res judicata. Thus, it is submitted that the Trial Court committed material
illegality by rejecting the application filed under Section 11 of C.P.C.
4 . Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondent that earlier,
applicant had filed an application under Section 10 of C.P.C., which was
dismissed and the said order has attained finality. It is further submitted that
judgment and decree passed in RCS No.4A/2017 might have been
challenged.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. None of the parties were in a position to verify as to whether
judgment passed in RCS No.4A/2017 was sub judice before this Court or not
? Accordingly, it was verified from the website of High Court and it was
found that F.A.No.141/2017 has been filed against the judgment and decree
dated 06/05/2017 passed in RCS No.4A/2017 and it is pending. Thus, it is
clear that the judgment and decree passed in RCS No.4A/2017 on which the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5874
3 CR-195-2025
applicant had placed reliance for dismissal of counter-claim on the principle
of res judicata is pending and the matter is sub judice.
7. Under these circumstances, applicant could have filed an application
under Section 10 of C.P.C. but that application has already been rejected.
First appeal is the continuation of suit, therefore, whether late Sardar Karam
Singh was the owner of property in dispute or not is still sub judice and the
counter-claim filed by respondent cannot be dismissed by applying the
principle of res judicata.
8. Section 11 of C.P.C. requires that previous suit, which was between
the same parties in respect of the same property involving similar issue, must
have been heard and decided finally. Since, the judgment passed in RCS
No.4A/2017 is sub judice in F.A.No.141/2017, therefore, it cannot be said
that the judgment passed in RCS No.4A/2017 has attained finality.
9. Accordingly, the Trial Court did not commit any mistake by
rejecting the application filed under Section 11 of C.P.C.
10. Civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
PjS/-
