For Res Judicata To Apply, Previous Suit Should Have Been Decided On Merits : Supreme Court Explains Principles

In a notable judgment explaining the principles of res judiciata, the Supreme Court has held that an order closing the proceedings in a case cannot be construed as a final decision on merits so as to bar a subsequent suit.Accordingly, the Court set aside a judgment and decree of the Delhi High Court which rejected the plaint of an Eviction Petition for being in violation of the principles of the res judicata.The division bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice J. B. Pardiwala observed:“The order passed by the Rent Comptroller 27.01.1998 did not purport to be one of dismissal for default or on merits and it cannot be taken to mean other than what it purported to be....The order did not purport to be a final disposal of the suit. It merely stopped the proceedings. It did nothing more. This is not final decision of the suit within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 8 and Order 17 Rule 3 resply of the CPC.”Principles of res-judiciata summarized :The Court summarized the principles of res-judiciata as follows :(i) To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to;(ii) The defence made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application;(iii) To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that (i) the ‘previous suit’ is decided, (ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (iii) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the same title; and (iv) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit; and(iv) Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.FactsThe father of the appellants (landlord) filed an eviction petition on May 21, 1996 under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act of 1958) against the respondents (tenants) alleging that arrears of the rent was not cleared. In the said eviction petition, the respondents denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. However, plaintiffs-appellants failed to appear before the Rent Controller for the purpose of establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The plaintiffs were granted numerous opportunities to adduce evidence to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, last such opportunity was given on November 1, 1997.The Rent Controller passed an order dated January 27, 1998 stating as follows:“…………….The PE is thus closed.Since the relationship of Landlord tenant itself is under dispute and the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence to establish this fact, I am of the opinion that there is no point in fixing the case further for RE. The petition is thus dismissed as the petitioner has failed to establish his case. File be consigned.”During the lifetime of original plaintiff ,no appeal or fresh eviction petition was filed.After the demise of the original plaintiff, the appellants claiming as successors in interest filed another eviction petition in the year 2001 against the respondents under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act 1958 claiming arrears of rent from March 1, 1993 till the date of issuance of notice i.e. till May 18, 2001.The respondents filed the written statement and an application under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC stating that the said eviction petition of 2001 was barred by the principles of res judicata and the plaint shall be rejected accordingly.However, the Additional Rent Controller declined to reject the plaint vide order dated July 23, 2002 on the ground that the second eviction petition filed in was based on a fresh notice dated May 18, 2001 on separate cause of action and that there was no finding on merits as regards the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in the order dated January 27, 1998.The respondents-tenants approached the Delhi High Court in a civil revision petition challenging the impugned order dated July 23, 2022 which was allowed and plaint of the eviction petition of 2001 was rejected by the High Court on the ground that the same was hit by the principles of res judicata.The appellants approached the Supreme Court challenging the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court.IssueWhether the finding recorded by the Rent Controller while dismissing the Eviction Petition of 1996 that the eviction petition deserves to be dismissed as the plaintiff Samey Singh had failed to establish the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties could be said to be on merits so as to render the second Eviction Petition of 2001 not maintainable on the principles of res judicata.The Supreme Court’s ObservationThe Court noted:“The...

For Res Judicata To Apply, Previous Suit Should Have Been Decided On Merits : Supreme Court Explains Principles

Udit Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

For Res Judicata To Apply, Previous Suit Should Have Been Decided On Merits : Supreme Court Explains Principles

Udit Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers