For Res Judicata To Apply, Previous Suit Should Have Been Decided On Merits: Supreme Court Explains Principles
Case: Prem Kishore & Ors. v. Brahm Prakash & Ors.
Coram: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice J. B. Pardiwala
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1948 OF 2013
Court Observation: “The order passed by the Rent Comptroller 27.01.1998 did not purport to be one of dismissal for default or on merits and it cannot be taken to mean other than what it purported to be….The order did not purport to be a final disposal of the suit. It merely stopped the proceedings. It did nothing more. This is not final decision of the suit within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 8 and Order 17 Rule 3 resply of the CPC.”
“The general principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC contain rules of conclusiveness of judgment, but for res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. Further, the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality.”
“the PE is thus closed.” In the second part of the order, the Rent Controller, thereafter, proceeds to observe that since the relationship of Landlord-Tenant is under dispute and the plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence to establish such relationship, he did not find any good reason to fix the case further for recording of evidence. In such circumstances, he dismissed the eviction petition, as the plaintiff could be said to have failed to establish his case. In the last, he observed that the file be consigned.”
“The words, which we have quoted above, certainly do not mean dismissal either on merits or on default. It was argued before us that the order should only be taken to mean what an order under Order 17 can possibly be and nothing else. We are not impressed by such submission.”
“First, we have not expressed any opinion on rival contentions regarding the applicability or otherwise of the principle of res judicata or for that matter any other contentious issue in the pending suit. Secondly, nothing stated in this judgment will prevent the concerned defendants from requesting the Court to decide such an issue as a preliminary issue. Such an application would obviously be decided on its merits about which also we expressed no opinion. The suit is revived.”
Previous Posts
