The Supreme Court on Monday (July 27) held that where an application for impleadment has been rejected on merits under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, a subsequent application seeking the same relief under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata, provided it is based on the same cause, between the same parties litigating under the same title, and is decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.

"Where the Order I Rule 10 application was considered and rejected on its merits i.e., the court actually examined the transferee's claim, the genuineness/bona fides of the transfer, and the nature of the interest, and that order was not appealed or reviewed, a second application under Order XXII Rule 10 raising the claim based on the same transfer, same interest, same facts would ordinarily be barred by the principles of res judicata as issue has been decided on merits and attained finality.”, the Court observed.

The Court, however, clarified the bar of res judicata would not be applicable on a subsequent application for an impleadment, when the rejection of an earlier application “…was on a technical or procedural ground without an adjudication on the merits of the transferee's interest, or there is a fresh devolution or assignment after the rejection of an application under Order I Rule 10, giving rise to a distinct cause not earlier considered, or when the earlier order is itself under challenge and has not attained finality.”

A bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the case where the Appellant was aggrieved by the part of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment which had allowed the impleadment of the Respondents in two different proceedings i.e., the main appeals and cross-objections preferred by the Appellant, by allowing the Respondents application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, despite their earlier application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment in main appeal was dismissed on merits.

The dispute arose from a long-pending property litigation involving rival claims over property left behind by Girdhari Lal. During the pendency of the proceedings, two purchasers acquired part of the property through a registered sale deed and sought to be impleaded in the litigation. Their earlier application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) had been dismissed by the High Court in 2000. Years later, after the main appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution and the cross-objections alone were restored, the purchasers again sought impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. The High Court allowed their plea, and restored the main appeal as well.

The Appellant in the Supreme Court contended that the subsequent application filed by the Respondents under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC was nothing but reagitating of the identical relief of impleadment sought in an earlier application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, based upon the same registered sale deed executed in their favour.

Finding force in the Appellant's contention, the judgment authored by Justice Masih observed that the High Court erred in allowing the Respondent's subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment in the main appeals, ignoring the fact that the same was a reagitation of the identical relief of impleadment sought in an earlier application under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

“The record reveals that the subsequent purchasers had previously sought an identical relief of impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, predicated upon the same registered sale deed executed in their favour. The right to seek substitution or impleadment, if any under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC, had squarely accrued and was triggered at the time of filing the initial application. Therefore, in the present case, the remedies under Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 are overlapping as they are addressing the same underlying question as to whether a person who has acquired an interest pendente lite should be brought on record. They are not different causes of action; rather they are different procedural doors to the same relief.”, the court observed.

“Consequently, the underlying issue regarding the subsequent buyer's right to be impleaded on the strength of the said title was earlier directly and substantially in issue between the same parties, litigating under the same title, before a court of competent jurisdiction, and was conclusively decided against them. 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 added.

However, the Court upheld the High Court's decision insofar as it permitted the respondents to be impleaded in the cross-objections under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, holding that the earlier dismissal of their application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment in the main appeal did not bar their impleadment in the cross-objections.

“…as noted above the earlier application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was filed for impleadment in the main appeal only and not in the cross-objections. Therefore, the principle of res judicata will not apply qua the application filed under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC in the cross-objections preferred by the Appellant.”, the Court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was partly allowed.

Related : Res Judicata Principle Applies Also Between Two Stages Of Same Litigation : Supreme Court Explains 'Interlocutory Res Judicata'

Cause Title: SANJIV KUMAR VERSUS SHAKUNTLA DEVI AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 726

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yash, Adv. Mr. Damanjeet Singh Sangar, Adv. Mrs. Gauri Bedi, Adv. Mr. Amitoj Bir Singh, Adv. Ms. Neha Verma, Adv. Mr. Rohit Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chritarth Palli, AOR Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Adv.