Res Judicata Not Attracted In Subsequent Suit Between Same Parties Seeking Completely Different Remedies Qua Same Property: Chhattisgarh HC
The Chhattisgarh High court recently held that a subsequent suit between the same parties qua the same property would not be barred by the principle of res judicata contained under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, it the two suits were filed seeking different remedies.In this case, the first suit was filed by the Appellant/ Plaintiff for eviction of the defendants on the basis of...
The Chhattisgarh High court recently held that a subsequent suit between the same parties qua the same property would not be barred by the principle of res judicata contained under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, it the two suits were filed seeking different remedies.
In this case, the first suit was filed by the Appellant/ Plaintiff for eviction of the defendants on the basis of relationship between the parties as landlord tenant. The subsequent suit was filed by the plaintiff for vacant possession of the suit house claiming himself as a title holder over the suit house.
The bench of Justice Arvind Singh Chandel held,
"On a close scrutiny of the pleadings made in the present suit as well as in the previous suit, the issues framed in the present suit as well as in the previous suit and the findings given by the Court in the previous suit, it is clear that in the previous suit the question whether the plaintiff was title holder of the suit house or not was not involved directly or indirectly. Therefore, the finding of the Court below that the present suit preferred by the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of Section 11 CPC is not in accordance with law. Hence, it is held that the present suit preferred by the plaintiff is not barred under the provisions of Section 11 CPC. The Court below dismissed the suit only on the ground of res judicata and did not decide the other issues on merit."
Plaintiff submitted that the Court below illegally refused to exercise its jurisdiction to decree the suit on the ground of res judicata. The Court below failed to appreciate that the question of title incidentally considered in eviction proceedings could not be taken as bar in a subsequent suit based on title. In the previous suit, no issue pertaining to title of the plaintiff was framed or directly dealt with. The parties were either not at issue on the point of plaintiff's title or that the suit was not directly and subsequently involved for adjudication. If the parties were not at issue on this point then the Respondents would be stopped from agitating the point subsequently and if the issue was not involved directly and subsequently then it would not operate as res judicata.
It was further argued that the Court below failed to appreciate that the issue in order to operate as res judicata must have been decided by the Court of exclusive jurisdiction and not merely by the Court of preferential jurisdiction and that the Court exercising jurisdiction under the Accommodation Control Act has preferential jurisdiction and not the exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore also, the suit was not barred under the provisions of Section 11 CPC.
The suit before Trial was mainly dismissed on ground of res judicata.
The Court noted that in the previous suit, the plaintiff never claimed his title over the suit house. He only claimed himself as the landlord of the suit house on the basis of the will. In the previous suit, directly or indirectly, no question was involved that the plaintiff got title over the suit house on the basis of the will as there was no issue framed by the Court on this point. Therefore, the finding of the Court in the previous suit regarding execution of the will is incidental.
After a close scrutiny of the suits the court was of the view that there is no question of res judicata involved. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court to decide the other issues as also the civil suit on their merits in accordance with law and pass a fresh judgment.
Case Title : Santosh Kumar Sahu v Smt. Basanti Bai and ors
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 58