Plea Of Res Judicata Need Not Be Decided At Threshold In Small Causes Suits: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a defendant in a suit before a Court of Small Causes cannot insist, as a matter of right, that his plea of res judicata be decided at the threshold. It held that whether such a plea is taken up first depends on the nature of the enquiry it calls for, and where it turns on disputed facts, it must be decided along with the rest of the suit.Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bars the trial of a matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties litigating under the same title, which has been finally decided by a competent court (principle of res judicata).Order 50 Rule 1(a)(iii) CPC excludes the provisions of the Code relating to the settlement of issues from suits triable by a Court of Small Causes. Order XX Rule 4(1) CPC provides that the judgment of such a court need contain nothing more than the points for determination and the decision on them.Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,“It follows that the mere invocation of the statutory bar contained in Section 11 CPC does not, by itself, entitle a party to insist upon a threshold adjudication of the plea of res judicata. The doctrine is intended to advance the principle of finality in litigation and not to create procedural impediments divorced from the factual foundation upon which it rests.”Petitioners claimed to be the original owners of premises at Mohalla Kothiwala, District Saharanpur. According to them, they had borrowed Rs. 6,00,000/- in 2014 from the respondent's husband and meant to secure the loan by a mortgage, but a sale deed dated 23rd September 2014 was executed on their thumb impressions without the nature of the document being disclosed to them. They filed Original Suit No. 640 of 2015 for a declaration that the sale deed is void.The respondent thereafter set up a landlord-tenant relationship by notice and filed SCC Suit for their eviction, prosecuted by her husband as her constituted attorney. That suit was dismissed. She then issued a fresh notice on 28th August 2023 and filed the present SCC Suit No.3 of 2023 seeking eviction, arrears of rent and damages.In their written statement, petitioners pleaded that the fresh suit was barred by res judicata, the issues sought to be raised again having attained finality by the judgment of 19th August 2023. They also moved an application under Order XIV Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC asking that the plea be framed and decided as a preliminary issue, since it would end the suit if upheld.The Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur rejected the application holding that Order L Rule 1 CPC makes the procedure for settlement and framing of issues inapplicable to Small Causes proceedings, and res judicata, being a mixed question of law and fact, could not be decided as a preliminary issue. Petitioners then invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227.The Court observed that Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 applies the CPC to such suits subject to the exclusions written into the Code. It noted that Order L Rule 1(a) excludes procedural categories by their subject-matter rather than by numbering individual Orders and Rules. What stands excluded is the elaborate exercise of settling and framing issues, which would sit ill with the summary character of these proceedings, it held.“The consequence of such exclusion, however, is not that the Court of Small Causes is relieved of its obligation to identify and adjudicate the real controversies arising between the parties. Although the procedure relating to the settlement and framing of issues stands excluded, Order XX Rule 4(1) CPC nevertheless requires the Court to formulate the points for determination and pronounce its decision thereon. The summary character of the proceedings is thereby preserved without diluting the Court's essential judicial function of determining every material controversy arising between the parties.”It noted that in Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda (Dead) through LRs, the Supreme Court had held that the points for determination under Order XX Rule 4(1) CPC are in substance the issues which would otherwise arise under Order XIV. The same position had been reiterated by the High Court in Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Subhash Chand Surana.“The Court is neither required nor expected to undertake the formal exercise of settlement and framing of issues in the manner applicable to ordinary civil suits. At the same time, it remains under a duty to identify the disputes that arise for adjudication by formulating the points for determination and rendering its decision thereon in conformity with Order XX Rule 4(1) CPC. The exclusion of the procedure relating to the settlement of issues, therefore, does not dilute the obligation of the Court to adjudicate every material controversy arising between the parties; it merely modifies the procedural mode by which such adjudication is undertaken.”Further, the Court held that only ...

Plea Of Res Judicata Need Not Be Decided At Threshold In Small Causes Suits: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Plea Of Res Judicata Need Not Be Decided At Threshold In Small Causes Suits: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers