1. :

Several cases repeatedly cite "Sathyanath v. Sarojamani, AIR 2022 SC 2242" and "Sathyanath and others vs. Sarojamani, (2022) 7 SCC 644" as authoritative or relevant authority, indicating these decisions are considered binding or persuasive in subsequent rulings.

For example, cases like <02500113424>, <01800035234>, <01800033991>, <01700066978>, <00200058627>, <01400036209>, <00100081848>, <00100036626>, <00100007357>, <00100074186>, <00100039079>, <00100066719>, <00100007491>, <00100074292> all reference the 2022 SCC decision with approval, suggesting these are treated as good law and are followed or relied upon.

The repeated reliance on the 2022 SCC case indicates it is a leading precedent on the issues of preliminary issues, res judicata, and jurisdiction, and is treated as authoritative.

2. :

Several cases discuss procedural issues, such as the scope of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, the discretion of courts to try issues preliminarily, and the principles governing res judicata and jurisdiction.

For example, <01400035408> and <00400003606> clarify that Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, as amended, does not impose mandatory preliminary decision on jurisdiction or legal bar, indicating these are considered settled principles and are followed.

Cases like <00100051246> and <00800004591> emphasize the court’s discretion and procedural flexibility, reflecting accepted legal principles.

3. :

Some references, such as <04300002116>, <02700048949>, and <02500118241>, primarily cite the case without indicating how it was treated subsequently.

The case <01300038883> references judgments and paragraph numbers but does not specify treatment, making it uncertain whether the case was overruled or followed.

The case <00300054614> mentions "res judicata" but does not specify whether it was overruled or criticized.

4. :

Many entries are citations or references to the case without context about subsequent judicial treatment, making it difficult to determine if they are still good law or have been overruled.