POONAM CHAND JAIN & Anr. v. FAZRU

reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings. In the instant case, the· second complaint was on almost identical facts which were raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits. The core of both the complaints B was same. Nothing was disclosed in the second complaint which was substantially new and not disclosed in first complaint. No case was made out that even after the exercise of due diligence the-facts alleged in the second complaint were not within the knowledge of the c first complaint. In fact such a case could not be made out since the facts in both the complaints were almost identical. Therefore, the second complaint is not covered within exceptional circumstances. In that view of the . matter the second complaint in the facts of this case, 0 cannot be entertained. Unfortunately, the High Court fell into an error in not appreciating the legal position in its correct perspective while allowing the revision petition of the respondent. The order passed by the High Court in revision jurisdiction cannot be sustained and is quashed. [Paras 23, 27 and 28] (116-A-C; 118-C-G] E