The Supreme Court held that Res Judicata applies not only to two different proceedings but also to different stages of the same proceeding.
The division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that Sub-rule (2) of Order I Rule 10 vests a very broad and substantial power in the court to delete or add a party, at any stage of the suit proceedings, either suo motu or upon an application of either of the parties before it. It provides that the court may delete the name of a party on such terms as may appear to the court to be just and proper. It may add any party whose presence before the court is necessary for the effective and complete adjudication and settlement of all the questions involved in the suit.
The Trial Court dismissed the application filed before it for seeking deletion of name of Appellant from the array of parties and held that the appellant was attempting to delay the execution by raising frivolous issues and that too after having failed to raise during the prior proceedings. The court noted that the appellant was a witness to the sale agreement dated 14.06.1996, had previously participated in litigation without objecting, and was now employing a strategy of filing repetitive interlocutory applications to obstruct the execution of the decree.
The bench noted that Sub-rule (2) of the Rule (4) of Order XXII provides that any party which is sought to be impleaded as a legal heir of a deceased defendant is at liberty to take up any defence as regards his character as the legal representative of the deceased defendant.
The bench further noted that the Trial Court, while dismissing the application moved by the appellant under Order SLP (C) No. 4307 of 2022 Page 24 of 38 I Rule 10, observed in clear terms that the appellant had the opportunity of contesting his impleadment as the legal heir of the original defendant when the application for impleadment and amendment of plaint was moved by the original plaintiff. However, the appellant, for reasons best known to him, chose to remain silent for more than four years and did not raise any objections as regards his status of not being a legal heir of the original defendant.
The court said that the position of law is well settled that the power to strike out or add a party to the proceedings under Order I Rule 10 can be exercised by the court at any stage of the proceeding. However, the same cannot be construed to mean that when a particular party has been impleaded as a legal heir under Order XXII Rule 4 after due inquiry by the court and without any objections, the party can approach the court anytime later and seek his deletion from the array of parties by filing an application under Order I Rule 10. If at all the appellant was aggrieved by his impleadment as a legal heir, the suitable course of action was to first object to his impleadment under Sub-rule (2) of Order XXII Rule 4. However, he chose not to raise any objection.
The court observed that the High Court, in its order, held the application of the appellant under Order I Rule 10 to be barred by res judicata and thus not maintainable on that ground. It found no infirmity in the said observation made by the High Court.
The court stated that in Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar it was observed that the principles of res judicata apply not only to two different proceedings but also to different stages of the same proceeding as well.
“It could be said that the issue as regards the impleadment of the appellant as a legal heir of the original defendant had attained finality between the parties and thus the subsequent application under Order I Rule 10 seeking to get his name deleted from the array of parties could be said to be barred by res judicata”, the court added.
It was further observed that the expression “at any stage of the proceedings” used in Order I Rule 10 allows the court to exercise its power at any stage, however the same cannot be construed to mean that the defendant can keep reagitating the same objection at different stages of the same proceeding, when the issue has been determined conclusively at a previous stage. Allowing the same would run contrary to the considerations of fair play and justice and would amount to keeping the parties in a state of limbo as regards the adjudication of the disputes.
“Thus, had the appellant taken up the objection at the right stage of the proceedings, it would have been open to the court to look into the said objection under Order XXII Rule 5 and disallow his impleadment as a legal heir of the original defendant. However, having failed to act at the appropriate stage, it was not open to the appellant to subsequently approach the court with an application under Order I Rule 10. Further, as we shall shortly discuss, the appellant having failed to raise the plea of his tenancy and possession over the suit property, the rejection of his application under Order I Rule 10 has no material effect on the ultimate outcome of the lis”, the court observed.
The bench viewed that the appellant has failed to establish his tenancy or possession over the suit property for the reasons:
a. The appellant is one of the witnesses to the agreement to sell entered into between the original plaintiff and the original defendant in the year 1996.
b. There is no clause or recital as regards the tenancy of the appellant in the agreement to sell unlike the assignment deed of the year 1976.
c. The appellant did not raise any objection in any of the proceedings on the ground of tenancy until the application filed by him in 2012 from which the present proceedings arise.
d. The appellant has failed to produce any documents indicating his tenancy or exclusive possession over the suit property from the time of the execution of the agreement to sell upto the filing of the execution application by the original plaintiff.
e. The Municipality license of 2011 has been issued long after the suit was decreed in the favor of the original plaintiff and during the pendency of the execution proceedings.
f. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings rejecting the claim of tenancy and exclusive possession over the suit property by the appellant.
The court dismissed the appeal and held that the Executing Court shall now proceed to ensure that vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property is handed over to the respondent no.1 in his capacity as the decree holder as well as the title holder of the suit property and, if necessary, with the aid of police.
Case Details
Case Title: Sulthan Said Ibrahim V/S Prakasan & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7108 Of 2025
Read More: US Federal Judge Halts Ban on Harvard’s International Student Enrollment Programme: What’s Next?
