Supreme Court Explains 'Henderson Doctrine' : Re-Litigation of Issues That Could Have Been Raised Earlier Is Barred
Yash Mittal
15 Dec 2024 1:09 PM IST
In a recent case, the Supreme Court explained Henderson doctrine, a natural corollary of the Indian doctrine of constructive Res-judicata codified in Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Propounded in the English case of Henderson versus Henderson, 1843, the doctrine suggests that all the issues arising in the litigation out of the same subject matter must be addressed in a single suit. The doctrine bars re-litigating issues that could or should have been raised in prior proceedings.
"In Henderson v. Henderson reported in [1843] 3 Hare 999, the English Court of Chancery speaking through Sir James Wigram, V.C. held that where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation and the adjudication of a court of competent jurisdiction, the parties so litigating are required to bring forward their whole case. Once the litigation has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the same parties will not be permitted to reopen the lis in respect of issues which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest but were not, irrespective of whether the same was due to any form of negligence, inadvertence, accident or omission. It was further held, that principle of res judicata applies not only to points upon which the Court was called upon by the parties to adjudicate and pronounce a judgement but to every possible or probable point or issue that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and the parties ought to have brought forward at the time.”, the court said.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a contempt petition filed against non-compliance with the court's order directing the respondent- Borrower and the Subsequent Transferee to handover the possession of the auction property which was confirmed in favour of the applicant.
Instead of complying with the court's order, the respondent re-litigated the issue of the auction sale contending that the auction sale was invalid due to non-compliance with SARFAESI Rules and the Supreme Court's order did not address the auction's legality or direct physical possession.
Rejecting the respondent's claim, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala noted that instead of giving finality to the litigation, the respondent seeks to re-litigate the issues that they could have raised in the earlier proceedings.
The Court highlighted that the Respondent had ample opportunity to raise all objections, including the validity of the auction, during the initial proceedings in the High Court and the subsequent appeal before the Supreme Court.
The court said that their failure to raise these issues in earlier proceedings precluded them from re-agitating the same or related claims in new proceedings under the principle of constructive res judicata or Henderson doctrine.
Referring to various authorities where the Supreme Court approved the Henderson doctrine, the Court observed as follows:-
“From the above exposition of law, it is clear that the 'Henderson Principle' is a core component of the broader doctrine of abuse of process, aimed at enthusing in the parties a sense of sanctity towards judicial adjudications and determinations. It ensures that litigants are not subjected to repetitive and vexatious legal challenges. At its core, the principle stipulates that all claims and issues that could and should have been raised in an earlier proceeding are barred from being raised in subsequent litigation, except in exceptional circumstances. This rule not only supports the finality of judgments but also underscores the ideals of judicial propriety and fairness.”
“As part of the broader rule against abuse of process, the Henderson principle is rooted in the idea of preventing the judicial process from being exploited in any manner that tends to undermine its integrity. This idea of preventing abuse of judicial process is not confined to specific procedure rules, but rather aligned to a broader purport of giving quietus to litigation and finality to judicial decisions. The essence of this rule is that litigation must be conducted in good faith, and parties should not engage in procedural tactics that fragment disputes, prolong litigation, or undermine the outcomes of such litigation. It is not a rigid rule but rather a flexible principle to prevent oppressive, unfair, or detrimental litigation.”, the court added.
Emphasizing that its prior judgment conclusively determined the rights and obligations of all parties concerning the secured asset, therefore any attempt to re-litigate the same issues was disallowed.
Accordingly, the contempt petition was allowed.
Case Title: CELIR LLP VERSUS MR. SUMATI PRASAD BAFNA & ORS.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 991
Click here to read the judgment
Also From Judgment: SARFAESI | Confirmed Sale Can't Be Set Aside For Mere Irregularities Except Fraud, Collusion, Inadequate Pricing, Under-bidding Etc
