Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
S. Ramachandra Rao - Appellant
Versus
S. Nagabhushana Rao & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7691-7694 of 2022 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21187-21190 of 2019]
Decided On : 19-10-2022
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Res Judicata – Section 11, CPC is not the foundation of doctrine of res judicata but is merely statutory recognition thereof and is not considered exhaustive of general principles of law – This doctrine is conceived in larger public interest and is founded on equity, justice and good conscience – It is in interest of public at large that a finality should attached to binding decisions of Courts of competent jurisdiction and it is also in public interest that individual should not be vexed twice with same kind of litigation – It is a part of rule of law – Doctrine of res judicata is attracted not only in separate subsequent proceedings but also at subsequent stage of same proceedings – Even an erroneous decision remains binding on parties to same litigation and concerning same issue, if rendered between same parties by a Court of competent jurisdiction – Doctrine of res judicata is fundamental to every well regulated system of jurisprudence, for being founded on consideration of public policy that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct. (Paras 9.3, 9.4, 9.5.1, 9.5.2 and 10)
(B) Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 32 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151 – Right of General Power of Attorney Holder to appear in Court – There does not appear any statutory prohibition operating in situation like that of present case for which existing GPA holder of a party cannot be given permission to appear only as GPA holder, even if he/she has been enrolled as an Advocate – Permission under Section 32 of Act of 1961, by its very nature, is to be granted on case-to-case basis and could also be refused with reference to given set of facts and circumstances referable to a particular case and any particular person. (Paras 14 and 20.2)
Facts of the case:
Issue involved in the matter is concerning the capacity in which plaintiff-appellant’s wife, who is General Power of Attorney Holder of the appellant and is also an enrolled advocate, could appear and act on his behalf in the said civil proceedings.
Findings of Court:
High Court has viewed the entire case from an altogether wrong angle, i.e., by misdirecting itself on the real point for determination; by not taking into comprehension the meaning, purport and effect of the previous binding orders dated 20.04.2018 and 14.12.2018 between the same parties in the same proceedings; and by misapplication of the Division Bench decision of the same High Court. This misdirected approach has resulted in the High Court ignoring the doctrine of res judicata and issuing such directions which are squarely opposite to the directions contained in the previous binding orders.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Doctrine of Res Judicata: The order and decisions in previous proceedings between the same parties on the same issues are binding and operate as res judicata. These previous orders, made by competent courts, cannot be re-opened or challenged in subsequent stages of the same proceedings, even if they are later found to be erroneous (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Finality of Court Orders: It is in the public interest and essential for the rule of law that final, binding decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction are respected and upheld. This ensures that individuals are not vexed multiple times over the same matter and maintains judicial discipline (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Role of Section 32 of Advocates Act: The provision allows courts to permit non-enrolled persons to appear in specific cases. It does not create a statutory bar against a person, including an advocate who later becomes enrolled, from acting as a party’s representative or GPA holder. Such permission is granted on a case-by-case basis and does not prohibit a person from acting in this capacity even if they are enrolled as an advocate during the proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
Capacity of a GPA Holder: A person holding a General Power of Attorney (GPA) can act as a representative of a party and conduct proceedings, including cross-examining witnesses, provided prior permission has been granted by the court. The court’s previous orders, which permitted the wife of the appellant to act as his GPA holder and to appear in proceedings, are binding and cannot be re-litigated (!) (!) (!) .
Misinterpretation by the Court: The High Court’s order under challenge wrongly characterized the previous orders, ignoring their binding nature and the specific scope of permission granted, leading to a misapplication of the doctrine of res judicata. This mischaracterization resulted in the direction that the wife could not act as a GPA holder or in her capacity as an advocate, contrary to the earlier clear orders (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Court’s Discretion and Public Policy: The doctrine of res judicata is rooted in public policy, justice, and equity, emphasizing that finality in litigation is essential for the proper administration of justice. Even erroneous decisions, made by courts of competent jurisdiction, generally remain binding unless specifically challenged through lawful procedures (!) (!) (!) .
Conclusion: The previous orders allowing the wife of the appellant to act as his GPA holder and to participate in proceedings in her capacity as such are binding and cannot be re-opened. The High Court’s order, which attempted to alter this understanding, was in error and thus set aside. The orders passed by the Trial Court permitting her to act as a GPA holder are restored (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the common order dated 28.06.2019 in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 758, 759, 760 & 761 of 2019, as passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, whereby the High Court has not approved the similar orders dated 07.02.2019, as passed by the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge at Vijayawada in four separate civil proceedings between the same contesting parties.
3. Put in a nutshell, the issue involved in the matter is concerning the capacity in which the plaintiff-appellant’s wife, who is the General Power of Attorney,1[‘GPA’, for short.] holder of the appellant and is also an enrolled advocate, could appear and act on his behalf in the said civil proceedings. Even before passing of the orders which form the subject-matter of present appeals, this issue had led to various orders by the Trial Court at different stages of proceedings as also to a couple of orders by the High Court in challenge to the orders so passed by the Trial Court. Therein, the Trial Court and the High Court essentially held that merely for the wife of the appellant being an advocate, there was no prohibition in law for her to act on behalf of her husband as a GPA holder but, it was made clear that she would appear in-person as a power agent of her husband and not in her professional capacity as an advocate. The same proposition was iterated by the Trial Court in its orders dated 07.02.2019 in these very proceedings, while rejecting the objection against examination of the witnesses by the wife of the appellant in her capacity as GPA holder. However, in the impugned order dated 28.06.2019, the High Court has held that in view of a Division Bench decision of the same High Court, it was not permissible for a GPA holder to participate in the proceedings and, therefore, while disapproving the orders under challenge, the wife of the appellant has been given liberty to act as an advocate on behalf of her husband, the plaintiff, in these cases.
4. With the outline as aforesaid, we may take note of the relevant background aspects as follows:
4.1. A civil suit for partition of certain properties, being O.S. No. 368 of 1995, came to be filed before the said Trial Court, wherein the appellant was arrayed as the 3rd plaintiff. The appellant would submit that on 20.04.1987, he had executed a GPA in favour of his brother, the 1st respondent herein (the contesting respondent), who had prosecuted the said civil suit for partition. A decree was passed in the said suit on the basis of a compromise memo filed on 17.09.1995. The appellant would allege that he was not aware of filing of the said civil suit; that the decree was detrimental to his interest and was fraudulently obtained; and therefore, he revoked the GPA in favour of the 1st respondent on 26.01.1996. Later on, the appellant executed another General Power of Attorney dated 25.01.1997 in favour of his wife. Thereafter, on behalf of the appellant, I.A. No. 634 of 1997 was filed in the said O.S. No. 368 of 1995 by his new GPA holder (his wife) for recalling the judgment and decree passed in the suit. This apart, the appellant instituted three more civil suits, being (i) O.S. No. 388 of 1997, for declaration of title, possession, partition, and mesne profits; (ii) O.S. No. 104 of 1998, for rendition of accounts in relation to actions and bank transactions by the contesting respondent in his erstwhile capacity as agent of the appellant; and (iii) O.S. No. 445 of 1998, for partition and mesne profits.
4.2. While the said four civil proceedings remained pending, the GPA holder of the appellant, i.e., his wife, graduated in law and she was enrolled as an advocate in the year 2011.
4.3. On 27.09.2011, an application, being I.A. No. 1308 of 2011, was filed in said I.A. No. 634 of 1997 in O.S. No. 368 of 1995 under Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,2[‘CPC’, for short], read with Section 32 of
(1) Res Judicata – It is in interest of public at large that a finality should attached to binding decisions of Courts of competent jurisdiction and it is also in public interest that individual shou....
The service of notice to any adult family member, including a female, is valid despite local amendments restricting it to male members, thus upholding the decree passed. Refusal to appear without suf....
Power conferred on Courts under Rule 3 of Order 17 of CPC to decide suit on merits for default of a party is a drastic power which seriously restricts remedy of unsuccessful party for redress.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
