The Supreme Court of India has held that a litigant cannot revive an impleadment claim by invoking a different provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 after the same issue has already been decided on merits. The Court ruled that even if an earlier order is based on an erroneous appreciation of facts, it continues to operate as res judicata unless it is set aside through appropriate legal proceedings.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the judgment in Sanjiv Kumar v. Shakuntla Devi & Others, partly allowing the appeal and clarifying the interplay between Order I Rule 10, Order XXII Rule 10, Section 146, and the doctrine of res judicata under Section 11 CPC.
The dispute arose from a long-pending property litigation involving ownership rights over properties bearing Nos. 4677 and 4677/A. The original plaintiff, Bhagwan Dai, sought declarations regarding her ownership over portions of the property after the death of her husband, Girdhari Lal.
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that Sanjiv Kumar had failed to establish that he was Bhagwan Dai's adopted son and upheld a Will executed in favour of the defendants.
On appeal, however, the First Appellate Court recognised Sanjiv Kumar as the validly adopted son of Bhagwan Dai and held that Bhagwan Dai had become the absolute owner of a portion of the property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The appellate court also restrained the defendants from alienating that particular property.
The defendants challenged the appellate decree before the High Court through a Regular Second Appeal, while Sanjiv Kumar filed cross-objections seeking declaration over the entire suit property.
Meanwhile, during the pendency of the litigation, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 purchased part of the property through a registered sale deed executed by the original owners.
In 1999, the subsequent purchasers filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to be impleaded in the second appeal.
The High Court rejected the application in 2000, observing that they had purchased the property during the pendency of litigation and were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.
Years later, both the second appeal and cross-objections were dismissed for non-prosecution. While the cross-objections were restored, the main appeal remained dismissed because the original appellants took no steps for restoration.
The subsequent purchasers thereafter filed fresh applications seeking:
condonation of a delay of 2109 days,
restoration of the second appeal,
and impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.
The High Court allowed the applications, restored the appeal, and impleaded the purchasers.
This order was challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court framed three principal issues:
Whether an earlier erroneous decision could still operate as res judicata.
Whether a subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC was barred after rejection of an earlier application under Order I Rule 10.
Whether impleadment could nevertheless be permitted in the cross-objections.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that judicial decisions bind the parties unless overturned through appropriate legal remedies.
It held that merely because an earlier decision proceeded on an erroneous appreciation of facts does not render it non-binding.
The Bench observed that the High Court erred in holding that the earlier order ceased to operate as res judicata merely because it was factually incorrect.
The Court distinguished the decision in Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman, observing that it dealt with statutory prohibitions and jurisdictional issues, none of which existed in the present case.
The Court explained the distinction between the two provisions.
Order I Rule 10 deals with adding necessary or proper parties.
Order XXII Rule 10 applies where an interest devolves upon a person during the pendency of litigation, permitting continuation of proceedings by or against the transferee.
Although both provisions are distinct, the Court observed that in many factual situations they overlap because the ultimate relief sought is the same—impleadment.
Where the earlier application under Order I Rule 10 has already been decided on merits regarding the same transfer, same sale deed and same interest, a subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 cannot be used to reopen the issue.
The Court held:
"The subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC is nothing but a re-agitation of a settled issue under a different statutory provision, which is impermissible and hit by the principles of res judicata."
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the subsequent purchasers had already sought impleadment on the basis of the same registered sale deed decades earlier.
Since that application had been finally rejected on merits and was never challenged, the issue attained finality.
Accordingly, the Court held that:
the subsequent purchasers could not be impleaded in the main appeal;
the High Court wrongly restored the second appeal after condoning the delay;
restoration of the main appeal was liable to be set aside.
However, the Court reached a different conclusion regarding the cross-objections.
It noted that the earlier impleadment application had been filed only in the main appeal and not in the cross-objections.
After the dismissal of the main appeal, the subsequent restoration of only the cross-objections materially altered the rights of the subsequent purchasers.
The Bench observed that there was a possibility that the original owners had lost interest in pursuing the litigation after selling the property, raising concerns of potential collusion.
Relying on Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. and Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon, the Court held that a transferee pendente lite whose predecessor ceases to contest litigation should ordinarily be permitted to defend his acquired interest.
Accordingly, impleadment of the subsequent purchasers in the cross-objections was upheld.
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and held that:
the High Court's order restoring the Regular Second Appeal was set aside;
impleadment of the subsequent purchasers in the main appeal was quashed;
impleadment of the purchasers in the cross-objections was upheld;
the appeal was partly allowed without any order as to costs.
Representation:-
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Sr. Adv., Mr. Yash, Adv., Mr. Damanjeet Singh Sangar, Adv., Mrs. Gauri Bedi, Adv., Mr. Amitoj Bir Singh, Adv. Ms. Neha Verma, Adv., Mr. Rohit Pandey, Adv., Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Chritarth Palli, AOR, Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Adv.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy