1. Second petition for salary relief on equal pay for equal work after the same relief was sought but not granted in a previous proceeding. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 2312
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I. and M.K. Mukuerjee and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
Chief Administrator - Appellant
Versus
Abhaya Charan Mishra (Dr.) - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. ........of 1996
Decided On : 25-03-1996
Important Points
A fresh petition seeking the same relief as a previous petition cannot be entertained if the relief was sought but not granted in the first instance, as the principle of res judicata applies regardless of whether the previous judgment explicitly mentioned the relief.
Subject
Civil Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 11, Explanation V - Res judicata - Fresh petition seeking the same relief as a previous petition - If relief was sought in an earlier petition but not granted, a subsequent petition for the same relief cannot be entertained - The fact that the judgment in the earlier petition does not specifically reference the relief does not preclude the application of res judicata - Tribunal in error in granting relief in a second petition merely due to absence of reference in the first judgment. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A respondent had previously filed a petition seeking specific relief, which was not granted. Subsequently, a second petition was filed seeking the same relief. The Tribunal granted the relief in the second petition on the grounds that the judgment of the first petition contained no reference to that specific relief.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal was in error in entertaining the second petition and granting the relief. The rule of res judicata applies to such cases.
Issues: Whether a second petition seeking the same relief as a previous petition can be entertained if the relief was sought but not granted in the first instance, specifically when the first judgment does not explicitly mention the relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the principle of res judicata and Explanation V to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if a relief is sought and not granted in a previous proceeding, a fresh petition for the same relief is not maintainable, regardless of whether the previous judgment explicitly referenced the relief.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Facts of the case:
A respondent had previously filed a petition seeking specific relief, which was not granted. Subsequently, a second petition was filed seeking the same relief. The Tribunal granted the relief in the second petition on the grounds that the judgment of the first petition contained no reference to that specific relief.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal was in error in entertaining the second petition and granting the relief. The rule of res judicata applies to such cases.
Issues: Whether a second petition seeking the same relief as a previous petition can be entertained if the relief was sought but not granted in the first instance, specifically when the first judgment does not explicitly mention the relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the principle of res judicata and Explanation V to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if a relief is sought and not granted in a previous proceeding, a fresh petition for the same relief is not maintainable, regardless of whether the previous judgment explicitly referenced the relief.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
- res judicata (Para 2)
-
civil procedure
Table of Contents
2. Respondent contended that the relief in the earlier petition was not pressed, justifying the entertainment of a subsequent petition for the same relief. (Para 2 )
3. The court observed that since the relief was sought in the first petition, the failure of the court to grant it bars a subsequent petition. (Para 2 )
4. The rule of res judicata prevents a fresh petition for the same relief if that relief was sought but not granted in an earlier proceeding. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed, Tribunal order set aside, and relief regarding salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work denied. (Para 1 , 2 )
6. Does the rule of res judicata apply if a relief sought in a previous petition was not specifically mentioned in the judgment?
Yes. If a relief was sought in an earlier petition but not granted, a fresh petition for the same relief cannot be entertained, even if the previous judgment contains no reference to that relief. (Para 2 )
7. Can a party file a second petition for relief that was allegedly not pressed in a previous proceeding?
No. If the relief was sought in the earlier petition, a fresh petition for the same relief cannot be entertained regardless of whether it was pressed or not. (Para 2 )
8. What is the legal effect of seeking relief under Explanation V to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a prior petition?
Seeking such relief in a prior petition, if not granted, precludes the entertainment of a subsequent petition for the same relief under the rule of res judicata. (Para 2 )
ORDER :
1. Special leave granted.
2. It appears that in the earlier petition filed by the respondent, OA No. 7 of 1988, that very relief was sought, but the same was not granted, in that, there was no reference to that relief. Counsel for the respondent says that it was on account of the fact that it was not pressed. Be that as it may, the relief was sought in view of Explanation V to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, if the relief is sought and was not granted by the Court for whatever reason, a fresh petition seeking the very same relief could not have been entertained. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was in error in entertaining the second petition and granting the relief which was not granted in the earlier petition merely because in the judgment of the earlier petition, there is no reference to that relief. The rule of res judicata should apply in such cases. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct that the relief in regard to salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work granted by the Tribunal was not admissible to the respondent. There will be no order as to costs.
