Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 115

 (a) Fresh suit-----   ----Refusing to admit certified copy of order in previous suit permitting filing of fresh suit-Wrong exercise of discretion-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, r. (1).   (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872)------   -----S. 115-Principle of estoppel --Explained.   The principle which is incorporated in section 115 is a simple and equitable doctrine which lays down that if a person has acted to his detriment or altered his position on the basis of any declaration, act or omission of another person that other person will not be allowed in any suit or proceedings between himself and the other person or his representative to go back upon it to the detriment of the opposite party.   19 I A 203 ref.   Case remanded to first appellate Court for trying issue if the suit premises belonged to another and not to the plaintiff.   Dates of hearing : 1st and 3rd September 1959.    JUDGMENT   FARUQUI, J.-The appellant Muhammad Yunus brought a suit in the Court of the Joint Sub-Judge, Hyderabad Sind (Suit No. 144 of 1953) for the ejectment of the present respondent Hafiz Muhammad Ismail from the premises bearing C. S. No. 446 in Ward D, Saraswati Street, Hyderabad and for arrears of rent and for compensation on account of certain damage and loss alleged to have been caused by Hafiz Muhammad Ismail, who was a tenant of the premises in suit. The premises of which Hafiz Muhammad Ismail was the tenant consisted of a shop, a residential house and a room on the first floor.   The rent of the entire premises under the tenancy of the respondent Hafiz Muhammad Ismail was Rs. 60 per month which was upon an application by the aforesaid tenant to the Rent Controller reduced to Rs. 25 by an ex parte order and which was later in consequence of an order of the Provincial Government fixed at Rs. 40 per month. The appellant Haji Muhammad Yunus before he filed the suit out of which this appeal arises had also obtained a certificate from the Rent Controller entitling him to eject the tenant Hafiz Muhammad Ismail.   The respondent who was the defendant in the first Court resisted the suit on various grounds on…