အမှုတမှု၏အဆင့်တဆင့်ချမှတ်သောဆုံးဖြတ်ချက်သည်၊ထိုအမှု၏နောက်အဆင့်တွင်မီးသေသည်။

  ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ

အမှုတမှု၏အဆင့်တဆင့်ချမှတ်သောဆုံးဖြတ်ချက်သည်၊ထိုအမှု၏နောက်အဆင့်တွင်မီးသေသည်။

————————————————-

1949 BLR ( H C ) 543

ALI HOOSEIN v. W. COOPER AND ONE 

Before U Thein Maung, Chief Justice, and U San Maung , J.

အမှုတွင်တရားလွှတ်တော်ကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

“Held: Where in a suit for the rede option of a launch the defendant who was the legal representative of the original pledgee, pleaded a sale (which was negatived) and did not plead that he got the launch without the engine, he was barred by the principle of res judicata to plead in execution proceedings that he did not get the engine at all. The executing Court must take the decree as it stands.

When the executing court once held an inquiry and held that the judgment-debtor got the suit launch with the engine and he wilfully failed to deliver the engine and issued a warrant of arrest and there was no appeal against the order, the finding is res judicata between the parties in the subsequent stage ot the same proceedings.”

တရားဝန်ကြီးချုပ်ဦးသိမ်းမောင်က၊စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၅၄၉တွင်ပရီဗွီကောင်စီ၏စီရင်ထုံးတရပ်ကိုကိုးကား၍၊မီးသေခြင်းဆိုင်ရာသဘောတရားကိုအောက်ပါအတိုင်းသုံးသပ်ပြဆိုသည်-

“Now, Their Lordships of the Privy Council have held in Ram Kirpal Shukul v. Mussumat Rup Kuari (1883-84) L.R. 11 L.A. 37,

"A Judge having decided in the course of execution proceedings that the decree according to its true construction awarded future mesne profits, such decision having been or become final was binding between the parties, and could not in a later stage of the execution proceedings be set aside and future mesne profits be disallowed."

This ruling has been followed in Daw Ohn Bwin v. U Ba and one (1930) I.L.R. 8 Ran. 302.   where a Bench of the late High Court of judicature at Rangoon held that the principles of res judicata as laid down in section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, together with the explanations thereto apply to execution proceedings.”