Principle Of Res Judicata Bars Second Amendment Application Seeking Identical Reliefs: Jharkhand High Court
Bhavya Singh
24 Dec 2024 1:20 PM IST
The Jharkhand High Court in a recent judgement has reiterated that an order passed at one stage of a proceeding bars the reconsideration of the same issue at a later stage.
The Court placed reliance on the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Smt. Deorjin Debi (AIR 1960 SC 941), emphasising that a decision rendered earlier in a case precludes the reconsideration of the same matter in subsequent applications.
Justice Subhash Chand, presiding over the case, stated, “An order at one stage of proceeding acts as res judicata at all later stages of same proceeding. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal vs Smt. Deorjin Debi reported in AIR 1960 SC 941 ... held that an order at one stage of proceeding acts as res judicata at all later stages of same proceeding.”
As per the factual matrix of the case, in the second amendment application, the plaintiffs sought to delete two plot numbers and their respective areas from the plaint's schedule and to amend the total area of the plots accordingly. The plaintiffs also sought to correct two other plot numbers as well. However, the trial court rejected plaintiffs' application, ruling that the amendments were substantially similar to those which were sought in a previous application that was rejected.
The High Court in its judgement observed, “Certainly, the principle of res judicata is applicable if, in the earlier application, the order has been passed by the very Court, and the very contents thereof or part contents thereof cannot be taken in the second amendment application.”
The Court noted that the amendments concerning to the deletion of plots were formal in nature and would not have altered the core of the plaint or prejudiced the defendants.
The Court said, “Certainly, this amendment is formal in nature reason being the two plot numbers and area of which has already been given in the plaint itself, same is sought to be deleted for the same the plaintiffs has abandoned his relief. So far as addition of Plot No.2152 in place of Plot No.2151 is concerned, the same cannot be permissible reason being that both Plot Nos.2151 and 2152 are already in the schedule of the property given at the foot of the plaint.”
“From the proposed amendment, the very nature of the plaint is not changed and no prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendants by allowing this amendment application up to the extent of deletion of two plot number and their area and consequential amendment in the plaint itself. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Original Title Suit No.213 of 2018 the evidence has not been commenced till date,” the Court ruled.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous petition, while ruling that the finding given by the trial court rejecting the amendment application needed no interference.
Case Title: Parvez Akhtar and Ors vs Tabish Ansari and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 198
