Higher Court's Order Becomes Final, Trial Court's Order Gets Merged With It : Supreme Court Explains Doctrine Of Merger

Observing that there cannot be more than one decree or operative order governing the same subject matter at a given point in time, the Supreme Court explained the effect of merging the trial court's decree with that of the decree passed by the High Court in the second appeals.

The doctrine speaks that once the superior court disposes of a case, whether by setting aside, modifying, or confirming the lower court's decree, the superior court's order becomes the final, binding, and operative decree, merging the lower court's decision into it.

In Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, the Court explained the doctrine observed as follows:

“The logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject-matter at a given point of time. When a decree or order passed by an inferior court, tribunal or authority was subjected to a remedy available under the law before a superior forum then, though the decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and binding, nevertheless its finality is put in jeopardy. Once the superior court has disposed of the lis before it either way — whether the decree or order under appeal is set aside or modified or simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the superior court, tribunal or authority which is the final, binding and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or order passed by the court, tribunal or the authority below.”

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the case where the trial court directed the specific performance of the agreement to sell and granted 20 days to the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff filed a second appeal before the Punjab & Haryana High Court after the First Appellate Court interfered with the trial court's order because he failed to deposit to balance sales consideration within the stipulated time.

The High Court, while allowing the second appeal filed by the plaintiff, did not issue any specific direction regarding the deposit of the balance sale consideration within a particular period of time.

Now, the question that appeared for the Supreme Court's consideration was whether the direction of the trial court to deposit the balance sale consideration within 20 days would still be applicable upon allowing the second appeal by the High Court.

Justice Pardiwala's judgment clarified that under the 'doctrine of merger,' the trial court's decision merges with the superior court's (High Court's) order. Since the High Court did not specify a time limit for depositing the balance sale consideration, its decision takes precedence, and the trial court's timeline is not revived, even though it was upheld by the High Court.

“Thus, the High Court while allowing the second appeal filed by the original plaintiff had not issued any specific direction as regards the deposit of the balance sale consideration within a particular period of time. It is incorrect on the part of the appellant herein to say that since the trial court had directed that the balance sale consideration shall be deposited within 20 days, the same direction would be applicable even after the judgment of the High Court in second appeal.”, the Court observed.

“Consequent upon the passing of the decree of the second appellate court, the decree of the trial court merges with that of the same.”, the Court said.

The judgment clarified that specific performance is an equitable relief, and the plaintiff is bound by the High Court's decision. The plaintiff can seek an extension of the time limit beyond 20 days for depositing the remaining sale consideration, as the trial court's jurisdiction does not become functus officio upon decreeing specific performance but remains active until the decree is fully executed.

Appearance: 

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gurinder Singh Gill, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.P. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kuchaliya, Adv. Ms. Aashna Gill, Adv. Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Adv. Ms. Eknoor Kaur, Adv. Ms. Bhupinder, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Chritarth Palli , AOR Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Adv. Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR

Case Title: BALBIR SINGH & ANR ETC VERSUS BALDEV SINGH (D) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS. ETC

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 82

Click here to read/download the judgment