Full Text
JUDGMENT
8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + w.P.(c) 77su20r0 P & T SECONDARY SCHOOL..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Dinesh Agnani, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Leena Tutej a, Ms.Shoma Chaudhari, Advocates VETSUS HIRDESH JAIN & ORS...... Respondents Represented by: None for R-l Mr.Vaibhav Agnihotri, Advocate for R-2 Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate for R-3 w.P.(c) 8643t20r0 NDMC..... Petitioner Representedby: Mr.VaibhavAgnihotri, Advocate VETSUS o FilRDESH JAIN AND ORS...... Respondents Represented by: None for R-l Mr.Dinesh Agnani, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Leena Tuteja, Ms.Shoma Chaudhari, Advocates for R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS.
JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI ORDER oh 08.04.2013 Page I of 3 'f 2013:DHC:7147-DB t[1] I 't.a
1. A common order dated August 06, 2010 disposing of OA No.383/2010 is under challenge in both the writ petitions. Since 95Yo grantin-aid has to come from NCDC, vide W.P.(C) No.8643120I0 NDMC has challenged the order. Since 5yo contribution has to be made by the management of P & T Secondary School, Atul Grove Road, New Delhi W.P.(C) No.775 tl20l0 has been filed by said school. 2., Impugned order would reveal that both writ petitioners had.t' predicated a bar of res judicata. Said fact has been noted by the Tribunal in paragraph 4 of the impugned decision.
3. We see no culling of the pleadings in the impugned order. The inchoate reasoning as to why bar of res judicata would not apply does not satisfu the legal requirement.
4. Suffice would it be to state that when a bar of res judicata is pleaded as a defence and said defence is opposed by the claimant before a Judicial Fora, cause of action in the previous litigation with the pleadings has to be taken note of. It has then to be discussed whether the second action was on the same facts as existed earlier and pertained to a relief;vhich ought to have been claimed with reference to the cause of action which was the subject matter of the earlier proceedings. Needless to state the requirement of law is to claim all reliefs which arise out of a cause of action, keeping in view the distinction between different causes of action. From the same facts if different causes of action accrue all need not be merged. But with respect to a cause of action accrue on a given said of facts, all reliefs relatable thereto have to be prayed for.
5. We dispose of the writ petitions setting aside the impugned { f order dated August 06, 2010. OA No.383120I0 is restored for fresh adjudication before the Tribunal.
6. Since respondent No.l has chosen not to appear in spite of the matter being passed over once we are not fixing a date before the Tribunal.
7. Record of the writ petitions would reveal that on the last 6 consecutive occasions respondent No.1 had been seeking adjournments.
8. No costs. i g DASTI. "11 /' APRIL 08,20L[3] mm -.-rnf::?-/ u( PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.,tuk {. r