Is Subsequent Impleadment Application Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Plea Was Rejected Wrongly? Supreme Court Answers
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 27) held that if an earlier application seeking an impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC was decided on the merits, even though it was based on an erroneous consideration of facts, a subsequent application seeking an impleadment under a different CPC provision would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata. A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice...
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 27) held that if an earlier application seeking an impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC was decided on the merits, even though it was based on an erroneous consideration of facts, a subsequent application seeking an impleadment under a different CPC provision would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the case arising out of a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment which had allowed the Respondents' impleadment application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, impleading them in a main appeal, despite an earlier application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking the same relief being rejected on the merits.
The High Court reasoned that since the earlier application for impleadment was rejected on merits based on erroneous considerations of facts, a subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC seeking the same relief would not be barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Therefore, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the doctrine of res judicata would apply upon an earlier decision based upon erroneous consideration of facts?
Answering positively, the judgment authored by Justice Masih observed that the subsequent application filed by the Respondents would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata, even though the earlier application was decided on erroneous consideration of facts.
“…the earlier application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC filed by the subsequent purchasers in the regular second appeal was decided on merits even though based upon an erroneous consideration of facts therein, therefore, the findings of the Court would be binding upon the parties.”, the Court observed, emphasising that the subsequent application seeking an impleadment was hit by res judicata.
The Court stressed that if the Respondents felt that the earlier application was decided on the merits based on an erroneous consideration of facts, it was open to them to seek an appropriate legal remedy. However, instead of doing so, they subsequently filed another application seeking an impleadment under a different provision i.e., Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, which is nothing but reagitation of the settled issue.
“Even though the previous order was based upon erroneous consideration of facts, appropriate legal remedies were available for the subsequent purchasers - Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to challenge the findings of the earlier order dated 19.05.2000…The subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC is nothing but a re-agitation of a settled issue under a different statutory provision, which is impermissible and hit by the principles of res judicata.”, the Court observed.
Also From Judgment: Res Judicata Applies To Successive Impleadment Applications Under Different CPC Provisions: Supreme Court
Cause Title: SANJIV KUMAR VERSUS SHAKUNTLA DEVI AND OTHERS
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 726