TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price whereas according to the respondent the Corporation was not liable to pay in excess of D.G.S. D. contract rates. Both the suits were connected and tried together as the nature of dispute in both the suits were same. Issues framed were also common. The trial Court found that the Corporation was liable to pay for the goods supplied to it by the appellant only at D.G.S. D. contract rates. Even on this finding the claim of appellant was found substantiated for a part and consequently the suit was decreed to that extent. The suit of the Corporation was also decreed in part and it was directed that in respect of supplies where the payment had been made in excess of D.G.S. D. rates, the respondent was entitled to refund. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals were filed against the judgment and decree in all the suits and one appeal was dismissed either as barred by time or abated then the order operated as res judicata in other appeals, 'In the present case there were different suits from which different appeals had to be filed. The High Court's decision in the two appeals arising from suits Nos. 77 and 91 was undoubtedly earlier and therefore the condition that there should have been a decision in a former suit to give rise to res judicata in a subsequent suit was satisfied in the present case. The contention that there was no former suit in the present case must therefore fail'. In Shri Ramagya Prasad Gupta v. Sri Murli Prasad , an effort was made to get the decision in Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t observed, 'We are therefore of opinion that so long as the order in the appellant's appeal No. 7 confirming the order setting aside his election on the ground that he was a holder of an office of profit under the Bihar Government and therefore could not have been a properly nominated candidate stands, he cannot question the finding about his holding an office of profit, in the present appeal, which is founded on the contention that that finding is incorrect. 6. Thus the finality of finding recorded in the connected suit, due to non filing appeal, precluded the Court from proceeding with appeal in other suit. In any view of the matter the order of the High Court is not liable to interference. 7. In the result this appeal fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
