Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan reaffirmed that the principle of res judicata applies even to different stages of the same proceeding, barring re-agitation of issues that could have been raised earlier. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Sulthan said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Sulthan said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors. (2025)? 

• The litigation concerns a commercial property measuring 1 cent, comprising a tiled-roof shop with three-sided walls and front shutters, situated in Keezhumuri Desom, Ward No. 3, Block 42, Survey No. 1895, Palakkad Town, Kerala. 
• The original dispute arose between the plaintiff-purchaser and defendant Jameela Beevi regarding specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14th June 1996. 
• The agreement to sell was executed for total consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/-, with Rs. 4,50,000/- paid as advance and balance Rs. 1,50,000/- to be paid within three months.  
• The appellant, grandson of the original defendant, served as witness to this agreement. The defendant had originally acquired the property through an assignment deed dated 10th September1976. 
• When the defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite legal notice, the plaintiff instituted OS No. 617/1996 for specific performance. The suit was initially decreed ex parte on 30.06.1998 but was restored for trial following a successful challenge by the defendant. After contested proceedings, the suit was finally decreed on 17.03.2003, directing execution of sale deed upon payment of balance consideration. 
• The defendant's appeal (RFA No. 281/2003) was dismissed by the Kerala High Court on 02nd August 2008. Subsequently, the Supreme Court also dismissed the defendant's SLP (C) No. 18880/2008 on 13th August 2008, thereby affirming the decree for specific performance. 
• Following the defendant's failure to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff filed execution application IA No. 2548/2003. During pendency of execution, the original defendant died on 19th October 2008, necessitating impleadment of legal heirs through IA No. 3823/2008, which was allowed without objection from any of the proposed legal heirs, including the present appellant. 
• Multiple applications were subsequently filed by various legal heirs seeking rescission of contract, which were consistently rejected by both trial court and High Court. The present appellant remained silent throughout these proceedings despite being served and appearing as respondent. 
• Only in July 2012, approximately four years after his impleadment and within a month of dismissal of the rescission application, did the appellant file IA No. 2348/2012 under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking deletion from party array. He claimed he was wrongly impleaded under Mohammedan law and asserted inherited tenancy rights from his deceased father, despite having witnessed the sale agreement and participating in prior proceedings without raising such objections. 
• The deletion application was dismissed by the trial court on 19th June 2013, and subsequently by the Kerala High Court in OP(C) No. 2290/2013 on 29.11.2021, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. Throughout this protracted litigation spanning over two decades, the plaintiff has been unable to obtain possession despite holding a final decree since 2003. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court categorically held that the doctrine of res judicata operates not merely inter se different proceedings but extends its application to successive stages within the same proceeding.  
• The Court emphasized that once a matter attains finality through judicial determination at any stage, parties are precluded from re-agitating identical issues at subsequent stages of the same litigation.   
• The Court observed that where impleadment of legal heirs is affected after due enquiry under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC following the demise of a defendant, and such impleadment proceeds without objection despite service of notice and appearance by the proposed legal heir, the said impleadment attains finality.  
• Any subsequent application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking deletion from the party array, filed after considerable delay and multiple intervening proceedings, constitutes an abuse of process and is barred by constructive res judicata.   
• The Court noted that the timing of the deletion application, filed immediately after the dismissal of other dilatory applications, coupled with the appellant's prolonged silence despite multiple opportunities to object, seriously impugns the bona fides of the application. Such conduct demonstrates a calculated strategy to protract proceedings rather than genuine grievance regarding impleadment.  
• The Court held that bare assertions of tenancy rights, unsupported by contemporaneous documentation and contradicted by the party's own conduct as witness to the sale agreement, cannot be sustained. 
• The Court emphasized that tenancy claims raised for the first time during execution proceedings, without any foundation in pleadings or earlier proceedings, constitute afterthoughts designed to obstruct decree execution.   

What are the Principles of Res judicata ? 

• Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes the principle of res judicata, which prevents courts from trying any suit or issue where the matter has already been directly and substantially decided in a former suit between the same parties by a competent court. 
• Key Elements: 
  • Same parties or those claiming under them. 
  • Same title of litigation. 
  • Matter must be directly and substantially in issue in both suits. 
  • Previous decision must be heard and finally decided by a competent court. 
• Core Principle:  
  • The section embodies the legal maxim that no matter should be adjudicated twice - once a court of competent jurisdiction has decided an issue between parties, neither party can re-litigate the same matter in subsequent proceedings. 
• Important Explanations: 
  • Explanation IV is particularly significant - it deems that any matter which "might and ought to have been" raised as defense or attack in the former suit is considered to have been directly in issue. 
  • Explanation VII extends res judicata to execution proceedings. 
  • Explanation VIII allows decisions of courts with limited jurisdiction to operate as res judicata in subsequent suits. 
• Based on three Latin maxims: 
  • Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium - There should be an end to litigation. 
  • Nemo Debet Bis Vexari - No person should be vexed twice for the same cause. 
  • Res Judicata Pro Veritate Occipitur - Judicial decisions must be accepted as correct.

Cases Referred  

• Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar (2005): This case established that res judicata principles apply not only between different proceedings but also to different stages of the same proceeding, preventing parties from re-litigating settled issues. 
• Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi (1960): The Supreme Court held that res judicata is essential for giving finality to judicial decisions, preventing parties from re-agitating matters already decided, whether between past and future litigation or between different stages of the same proceeding. 
• Y.B. Patil And Ors v. Y.L. Patil (1976): This case clarified that once an order becomes final during the course of proceedings, it becomes binding at subsequent stages of the same proceeding under res judicata principles. 
• Hope Plantations Ltd. V. Taluk Land Board Peermade (1999): The Court emphasized that decisions by competent courts should be final unless modified by appellate authorities, and no person should face the same litigation twice as it would be contrary to fair play and justice. 
• S. Ramachandra Rao v. S. Nagabhushana Rao (2022):  This case reaffirmed that even erroneous decisions remain binding on parties in the same litigation concerning the same issue if rendered by a competent court, and res judicata applies to subsequent stages of the same proceedings. 
• Govindammal v. Vaidiyanathan (2017): Three conditions that are necessary to be fulfilled in applying the principle of res judicata between the co-defendants were laid down this case as:  
  • There must be a conflict of interest between the co-defendants;  
  • There is necessity to decide the said conflict to give relief to the plaintiff; and  
  • There is a final decision adjudicating the said conflict. 
• Tarini Charan Bhattacharya v. Kedar Nath Haldar (1928) : The Calcutta High Court ruled that whether a decision is correct or erroneous has no bearing on its operation as res judicata, and Section 11 CPC makes court decisions conclusive between parties regardless of the reasoning employed.