Parties Can't Re-Agitate Issues In Intra-Court Appeal After Agreeing That Matter Is Covered By Binding Precedent Before Single Judge: Patna HC

The Patna High Court has held that once parties agree before a Single Judge that an issue is concluded by binding precedent, they cannot subsequently re-agitate the same in an intra-court appeal, reiterating that statements recorded in a judgment are binding on the parties.A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 14725 of 2023.The writ petitioners (respondents herein) had challenged Clause 6 of Resolution No. 970 dated 31.08.2013 issued by the Education Department, Government of Bihar, whereby teaching and non-teaching employees of non-government recognized aided Sanskrit schools and Madarsas appointed on or after 15.02.2011 were placed on fixed salary. The learned Single Judge, relying on earlier Division Bench judgments, allowed the writ petition and quashed the relevant portion of the Resolution with consequential benefits.Before the Division Bench, the State contended that against the earlier judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 985 of 2015, a review petition had been filed which was dismissed for non-prosecution, and a restoration application was pending. It was argued that in view of the pending restoration application, the Single Judge ought to have kept the writ petition in abeyance.Per contra, the respondents submitted that the issue stood conclusively settled by binding Division Bench judgments, and the learned Single Judge had merely followed settled law. It was argued that no interference was warranted in appellate jurisdiction.The Court framed the limited issue as whether the impugned order, having been passed upon agreement of counsel that the issue stood concluded, could be interfered with in intra-court appellate jurisdiction.Upon examining the record, the Court noted that the learned Single Judge had specifically recorded that both parties agreed that the issue was already settled by earlier Division Bench judgments. The writ petition was accordingly allowed on that basis. Relying on State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (1982) 2 SCC 463, the Court reiterated:“It is well settled that what is recorded in a judgment as having been stated by counsel is conclusive and binding on the parties.”Applying the above principle, the Court held that the correctness of such recorded submission cannot be reopened in appeal, particularly in the absence of any material to show that the recording was erroneous. The Court further observed:“Once the parties agreed before the learned Single Judge that the controversy was concluded by binding precedent, and the order was passed on that basis, the appellants cannot now be permitted to re-agitate the same issue in an intra-court appeal.”In view of the above, the Court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference and dismissed the appeal.Case Title: State of Bihar and Anr v. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari and Ors.Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No. 713 of 2024 (in CWJC No. 14725 of 2023).Appearance: Mr. Anil Kumar appeared for the State of Bihar. Mr. Sriram Krishna, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, and Mr. Amarjeet appeared for the Respondents.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Parties Can't Re-Agitate Issues In Intra-Court Appeal After Agreeing That Matter Is Covered By Binding Precedent Before Single Judge: Patna HC

Rushil Batra

Tags