SUBJECT:

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & LIMITATION ACT, 1908-I

2ND INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

IRAC ANALYSIS

Name: Sannidhi Mahesh Sawant

Division: B
PRN: 22010126181
Year: 2nd Year
Semester: III (2023)
Course: B.B.A., LL. B (Hons.)

1 | Code of Civil Procedure & Limitation Act, 1908-I Internal 2: IRAC 22010126181
 Batch: 2022-2027

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Name of the Case:.............................................................................................................2

Facts of the case:...............................................................................................................2

Issues Involved:.................................................................................................................3

Rules (Laws Involved):.....................................................................................................4

Analysis of Issues:.............................................................................................................4

Conclusion and Observations:.........................................................................................6

2 | Code of Civil Procedure & Limitation Act, 1908-I Internal 2: IRAC 22010126181
 CASE ANALYSIS- (IRAC)

NAME OF THE CASE1:

Appellant: RAJ SPINNING MILLS, AMRITSAR

VERSUS.

Respondent: AG KING LTD., EXCELSIOR MILLS

Bench/Coram: Kapur, Soni

Date of Judgement: 22 July, 1952

Citation: AIR 1954 P H 113

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. A contract was entered into on the 30th January 1947 between the petitioners, Raj
Spinning Mills of Amritsar, and the opposite party, A. & G. King Limited, for the supply
of machinery

2. The petitioners had paid the opposing party £ 2,250 towards the purchase price of the
machinery, which had a worth of £12,806 overall.

3. On January 28, 1948, the petitioners filed a lawsuit seeking £2,250 in damages, claiming
the other party had broken the terms of the agreement.

1
Raj Spinning Mills, Amritsar vs A.G. King Ltd., Excelsior Mills AIR 1954 P H 113.

3 | Code of Civil Procedure & Limitation Act, 1908-I Internal 2: IRAC 22010126181
4. The suit was dismissed on the 11th July 1950 and an appeal has been brought to this
Court against this decree which is Regular First Appeal No. 237 Of 1950.

5. Before the appeal was filed in this Court the opposite party brought a suit on the 26th
August 1950 at Amritsar against the petitioners for the recovery of the balance of the
money due to them.

6. The petitioners applied to the trial Court for the stay of the suit which had been brought
by the opposite party under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. It was dismissed on July 24, 1951, and a revision was brought before this Court. A
learned Division Bench referred it to this Court on December 4, 1951, by an order dated
that same day.

ISSUES INVOLVED:

1. Whether the suit is maintainable under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

2. Whether the matters are fairly settled with respect to jurisdiction?

3. Whether the principles of Res Judicata shall apply in the given scenario?

4. Whether the word ‘suit’ in Section 10 will include the word ‘appeal’?

RULES (LAWS INVOLVED):

1. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure2:

(Sub Judice)The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts
in[India] from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.3

2
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 10.
S9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred- The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have
jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or
impliedly barred.
3
Subs. by Act 2 of 1951, s. 3, for "the States".

4 | Code of Civil Procedure & Limitation Act, 1908-I Internal 2: IRAC 22010126181
2. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure4

The expression former suit shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to a suit in
question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

1. The main conundrum of this case is whether the appeal or the second suit will be
maintainable post examining the facts of the previous suit. The counselor for the
petitioner argued that this case involving a similar debate has already been tried in a
competent court of law thereby challenging the validity of the second suit.

2. Section 11 is a provision for a suit in which the doctrine of Res Judicata applies. This
section originally states that-

“No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in
issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same
parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the
same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue
has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.”

3. It originated from a Latin maxim that states, "The thing has been judged." This means
that if a matter is brought before the court and has previously been decided by another
court involving the same parties and with a related cause of action, the court will reject
the case as pointless.5 Res Judicata is a highly significant principle in both the Criminal
and Civil Systems.

4. The relevant issues in the two suits are as follows-

In the initial lawsuit, the question was whether the defendants had broken the agreement,
and in the subsequent lawsuit filed by the other side, the question was whether the
plaintiff had fulfilled its half of the bargain and if the defendant had broken it.

4
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 11.
5
Krishnarao Namdeorao v. Shridhar Ramchandra, AIR 1947 Nag 154

5 | Code of Civil Procedure & Limitation Act, 1908-I Internal 2: IRAC 22010126181
5. This demonstrates that the subject matter of the two lawsuits is directly and essentially the
same, therefore the "res judicata" test—which has been used in a number of cases—
would also apply in this instance. This test was laid down by the Calcutta High Court in
the case (Sm. Jinnat Bibi v. Howrah Jute Mill Co. Ltd.6)
where Patterson, J., said

“One test of the applicability of Section 10 to a particular case is whether on the final
decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as 'res judicata'
in the subsequent suit and there can be no doubt that if this test is applied Section 10
must be held to be applicable to the present case.”

The same rule was laid down by Padhye, J., in – (Laxmi Bank Ltd., Akola v. Harikisan7)

6. The second query concerns whether the term "appeal" would be included in the definition
of "suit" in Section 10. Mulla's Civil Procedure Code states on page 34 that the term
"suit" encompasses "appeal." Additionally, a petition to His Majesty in Council is
included, and there is mention of another landmark case- (Jamini Nath v. Midnapur
Zamindary Co.8) .
In this case Rankin, J., observed as follows:

“The presence or absence of these words -- 'whether superior or inferior' -- does not, in
my judgment, affect the question one way or the other. I think that the reference at the
end of the section to 'His Majesty in Council' shows that" for this purpose 'suits' include
'appeals'”

Additionally, the learned Judge cited a Division Bench of that Court's decision in (Bepin
Behary v. Jogendra Chandra9), which established the same rule.

7. In the case of (Annamalay Chetty v. B. A. Thornhill), It was held by the lordships that,
they lament that the second case was not postponed until the appeal in the first action was
resolved, since doing so would have streamlined the process and reduced costs.
6
Sm. Jinnat Bibi v. Howrah Jute Mill Co. Ltd., AIR 1932 Cal 751
7
Laxmi Bank Ltd., Akola v. Harikisan, AIR 1948 Nag 297
8
Jamini Nath v. Midnapur Zamindary Co., AIR 1923 Cal 716
9

6 | Code of Civil Procedure & Limitation Act, 1908-I Internal 2: IRAC 22010126181
8. According to them, the earlier perspective is accurate. In cases when an appeal is filed,
the decree's finality is affected by the appeal, and it is not final in the sense that it would
create a "res judicata" between the parties10.

9. Thus, on the present petition, the civil court held that the suit was refused to be stayed in
accordance with Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). It was noted that
in the case of Annamalay Chetty v. B. A. Thornhill, the second action was not postponed
in order to await the outcome of the appeal in the first action, as doing so would have
expedited the process and saved money. Refusing to stay the lawsuit was deemed to be a
mistake.

CONCLUSION AND OBSERVATIONS:

1. The provision contained in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states that a
party may not bring up the same issue again in a different judicial proceeding once a
competent court has rendered a definitive decision on it.

2. The Principle states that a case that has reached res judicata cannot be reopened. It is
founded on the idea that court rulings should be given finality. It mostly applies to
disputes that have already been resolved between the parties in a single suit or proceeding
and are final in nature, whether they are based on facts or legal issues as given in the case
of Satyadhan Ghosal vs. Deorajin Debi11

3. Jude J.L. Kapur, J. thus concluded by stating that by misinterpreting Section 10, the
teamed Judge was incorrect in declining to exercise jurisdiction; as a result, he
granted this petition and established an absolute rule.

4. Additionally, Honorable judge, Ranbir Chand Soni, agreed with Judge Kapur by
elucidating that, in cases where Section 10 is applicable, the Court is forced to halt the
case. The question of whether or not to qualify the stay of such proceedings in order to

10
Annamalay Chetty v. B. A. Thornhill, AIR 1931 P.C. 263
11
Satyadhan Ghosal vs. Deorajin Debi AIR 1960 SC 941: (1960) 3 SCR 590

7 | Code of Civil Procedure & Limitation Act, 1908-I Internal 2: IRAC 22010126181
 prevent dishonest litigants from abusing the section's provisions is one of policy that only
the Legislature can resolve.

5. In conclusion, it is hereby seen that when a revenue statute provides for an assessment
methodology after being aggrieved, the concerned remedy is to be sought in a particular
form and way, and in such a process, all other modes or ways of seeking so are left out. In
light of these principles, it becomes clear that the contended Sections of the statute are
construed to bar by an unavoidable insinuation of the Civil Court’s jurisdiction. (Such
when the Act provides for the aggrieved party’s grievance when related to an assessment
or any principle of assessment).

[Total words (excluding footnotes): 1410]

8 | Code of Civil Procedure & Limitation Act, 1908-I Internal 2: IRAC 22010126181