Rajasthan High Court Deprecates Litigants Pursuing Two Remedies Simultaneously, Says 'Hedging Bets' Impermissible

While rejecting a revision petition, the Rajasthan High Court held that an aggrieved party cannot be allowed to avail two parallel remedies at the same time against the same order or judgment passed against them as such a conduct amounts to abuse of judicial process.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that once a party chose a remedy, s/he was bound by it and could not switch over to another if they fail to get any relief in the first remedy.

“By availing two parallel remedies, the petitioner intends to sail in two boats and the same cannot be permitted. One cannot pursue two parallel remedies against the self same judgment at the same time, as this will be deemed to be an abuse of the process of law and Court. Though multiple remedies might technically exist and selecting one remedy often bars the initiation of another remedy simultaneously. Such practice cannot be appreciated, rather it is liable to be deprecated. Once a party chooses to pursue one remedy (eg. appeal), he/she is bound by it and cannot switch over to another if he/she fails to get any relief in the first remedy. Essentially a litigant must choose his/her path and he/she cannot be allowed to “hedge his bets” by way of pursuing two parallel remedies simultaneously for espousing the same cause," the Court said.

A summary suit was initiated against the petitioner for recovery of a sum, based on a sale deed which was also signed by him. The suit was decreed by the executing court. Against this decree of the executing court, the petitioner filed objections under Section 47 of CPC, which were rejected. Hence, the revision petition was filed.

The revision petition was opposed on the ground that against the same decree of executing court, the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Court which was pending for consideration. And the petitioner was not entitled to invoke parallel remedies.

After hearing the contention, the Court aligned with the argument put forth by the opposite counsel, and highlighted that the petition reflected that the petitioner had already approached the Court by filing a statutory appeal.

The Court observed that while multiple remedies could technically exist, such practice had to be deprecated. It was opined that a litigant could not be allowed to “hedge his bets” by pursuing two parallel remedied simultaneously for the same cause.

It was further observed that the present matter was based on a latin maxim “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa”, which meant that no man should be vexed twice for the same cause, and hence, no one could be allowed to avail two parallel remedies for the same matter at the same time.

In this light, the Court upheld the rejection of petitioner's objections filed under Section 47, CPC, since a statutory appeal was already in place.

Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.

Title: Charan Singh Khangarot v Raghunath Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 80

Click Here To Read/Download Order