Res Judicata Is Attracted Not Only In Separate Subsequent Proceedings But Also At Subsequent Stage Of The Same Proceedings : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the doctrine of res judicata is attracted not only in separate subsequent proceedings but also at subsequent stage of the same proceedings.

A binding decision cannot be ignored even on the principle of per incuriam because that principle applies to the precedents and not to the doctrine of res judicata, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed.

One issue that arose in a partition suit was concerning the capacity in which the plaintiff's wife, who is the General Power of Attorney holder and also an enrolled advocate, could appear and act on his behalf in the said civil proceedings. Initially, the Trial Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that merely for the wife of the plaintiff being an advocate, there was no prohibition in law for her to act on behalf of her husband as a GPA holder but, it was made clear that she would appear in-person as a power agent of her husband and not in her professional capacity as an advocate. Subsequently, the High Court held that in view of a Division Bench decision of the same High Court, it was not permissible for a GPA holder to participate in the proceedings. This order of the High Court was challenged before the Apex Court.

Before the Apex Court bench, it was contended that the issue in question relating to the appearance of wife of the appellant as his GPA holder stood concluded in these proceedings by virtue of the previous orders of the High Court and such an issue could not have been re-opened at all, for operation of the doctrine of res judicata. On the other hand, the respondents contended that, where the consequence of giving effect to res judicata would be of enforcing an order standing contrary to statutory direction or prohibition, the doctrine of res judicata has no applicability.

In its judgment, the bench discusses the doctrine of Res Judicata and its application and relevance. It observed:

"For what has been noticed and discussed in the preceding paragraphs, it remains hardly a matter of doubt that the doctrine of res judicata is fundamental to every well regulated system of jurisprudence, for being founded on the consideration of public policy that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct and that no person should be vexed twice with the same kind of litigation. This doctrine of res judicata is attracted not only in separate subsequent proceedings but also at the subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Moreover, a binding decision cannot lightly be ignored and even an erroneous decision remains binding on the parties to the same litigation and concerning the same issue, if rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Such a binding decision cannot be ignored even on the principle of per incuriam because that principle applies to the precedents and not to the doctrine of res judicata."

The bench also rejected the contention raised by the respondent that Section 32 of the Advocates Act creates a bar for the wife of the appellant to seek permission of the Court to appear on behalf of her husband in her capacity as GPA holder because of she being an enrolled advocate. 

"The enabling provision of Section 32 of the Act of 1961, whereby any Court, authority or person may permit any non-advocate to appear before it or him in any particular case is difficult to be read as creating a corresponding bar in giving permission to a GPA holder of a party to represent that party as such, if the said GPA holder, during pendency of the proceedings in the Court, gets enrolled as an advocate. In other words, there does not appear any statutory prohibition operating in the situation like that of present case, for which the existing GPA holder of a party cannot be given permission to appear only as the GPA holder, even if he/she has been enrolled as an advocate", the bench said.

Observing thus, the court allowed appeals and restored the Trial Court order.

Case details

S Ramachandra Rao vs S Nagabhushana Rao | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 861 | CA 7691 - 7694 OF 2022 | 19 October 2022 | Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose

Headnotes

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Section 11 - Res Judicata - Doctrine of res judicata is attracted not only in separate subsequent proceedings but also at the subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Moreover, a binding decision cannot lightly be ignored and even an erroneous decision remains binding on the parties to the same litigation and concerning the same issue, if rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Such a binding decision cannot be ignored even on the principle of per incuriam because that principle applies to the precedents and not to the doctrine of res judicata. (Para 10)

Advocates Act, 1961 ; Section 32 - The enabling provision of Section 32, whereby any Court, authority or person may permit any non-advocate to appear before it or him in any particular case is difficult to be read as creating a corresponding bar in giving permission to a GPA holder of a party to represent that party as such, if the said GPA holder, during pendency of the proceedings in the Court, gets enrolled as an advocate. (Para 14)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment