' Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, seeking restraint against the respondent from raising any construction over the disputed wall; the suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Court on 18-1-2000, by applying the principle of res judicata. Petitioner preferred an appeal which met the same fate on 1-5-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in a suit for permanent injunction, every breach of obligation by the defendants give rise to a fresh cause of action, thus the dismissal of petitioner's earlier suit for permanent injunction would not bar the second suit on the principles of res judicata.
3. I am afraid, the above contention in the peculiar facts of the case, has no force, because earlier, the petitioner on the same cause of action, filed a suit, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 30-10-1997, on the basis of compromise Exh.D.2. As per whereof, wall in dispute was agreed by the parties to be owned by the respondents. Against this decree, petitioner preferred an appeal, but the appeal was subsequently withdrawn, again stating that the parties have amicably settled their discord, meaning thereby that the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 30- 10-1997, became final. Thereafter, on the basis of the same cause of action, primarily challenging the exclusive entitlement of the respondent qua the suit wall claiming it to be common, the petitioner's second suit squarely fell within the purview of section 11, C. P.0 .
' In the light of above, this petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed.