Sanjiv Kumar vs Shakuntla Devi - 2026 Supreme(SC) 820

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(SC) 820

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Sanjiv Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Shakuntla Devi And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9725 of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 1052 of 2025)
Decided On : 27-07-2026

Important Points

The doctrine of res judicata applies to interlocutory stages of the same proceeding. If an issue regarding the right to be impleaded based on a specific title has been conclusively decided on merits, a subsequent application for the same relief under a different procedural provision is barred.

Subject

Civil Law - Res Judicata and Joinder of Parties

Act Referred

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: S.11, O.1 R.10, O.22 R.10, S.146

Headnote

(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 - Res judicata - Applicability of doctrine to interlocutory applications - Distinction between joinder of parties and devolution of interest - A decision on merits, even if factually erroneous, binds parties in subsequent stages of the same litigation. (Paras 27, 33, 34, 36)

(B) Doctrine of res judicata - Scope - When an issue regarding the right to be impleaded based on a specific title has been conclusively decided on merits, a subsequent application for the same relief under a different procedural provision is barred. (Paras 37, 38)

Facts of the case:
A property dispute arose between original claimants. During the pendency of the appeal, certain individuals purchased a portion of the property. An initial application for impleadment by these purchasers was dismissed on merits. Subsequently, the main appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, while cross-objections were restored. The purchasers filed new applications for impleadment under a different procedural provision, which were allowed by the lower court, prompting the current appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the earlier dismissal of the impleadment application, despite being based on an erroneous factual premise, attained finality and operated as res judicata for the main appeal. However, since the cross-objections were not subject to the earlier application, the purchasers could be impleaded therein.

Issues: Whether the dismissal of an application for impleadment under one procedural provision bars a subsequent application for the same relief under another provision based on the same title, and whether such a decision constitutes res judicata.

Ratio Decidendi: The doctrine of res judicata applies to interlocutory stages of the same proceeding. Where an issue has been directly and substantially in issue and decided on merits, it cannot be re-agitated by switching procedural provisions. The court held that the earlier rejection of the impleadment application, having attained finality, precluded the purchasers from seeking the same relief in the main appeal.

Result: Appeal partly allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Mr. Yash, Adv. Mrs. Anchita Nayyar, Adv. Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Kamal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rohit Pandey, Adv. Mr. Alex Noel Dass, Adv. Ms. Ragini Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Chritarth Palli, AOR

Table of Content
1. historical and procedural background of the litigation over the suit property. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. summary of the high court's observation on the non-applicability of res judicata regarding interlocutory orders. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. competing contentions regarding the application of res judicata to successive procedural applications. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. the doctrine of res judicata binds parties to decisions on merits, even if those decisions contain errors of fact. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. overlap between o.1 r.10 and o.22 r.10 cpc; re-agitation of settled issues is disallowed. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
6. distinct treatment for impleadment in cross-objections versus the main appeal based on changed circumstances. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
7. partial allowance of appeal: impleadment permitted in cross-objections but denied in the main appeal. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)

JUDGMENT :

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal assails the interim order dated 13.11.2024 (hereinafter referred as the “impugned order”) passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as the “High Court”), whereby it allowed the application CM No. 8414-C of 2024 in the Regular Second Appeal No. 1795 of 1990 filed by the Appellant (plaintiff) herein by recalling its earlier order dated 13.08.2024 and proceeded to adjudicate upon the applications filed by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (subsequent purchasers), i.e., (i) CM No. 13866-C of 2023 for condonation of delay of 2109 days under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (ii) CM No. 13867-C of 2023 for restoration of Regular Second Appeal under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as the “CPC”); and (iii) CM No. 13868-C of 2023 and CM No. 13835-836-C of 2023 in XOBJS-20-C-1990 for impleadment in the main appeal as well as cross-objections under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC.

3. The primary grievance of the Appellant is that the High Court vide common impugned order dated 13.11.2024 allowed the aforementioned applications, thereby condoned the delay of 2109 days, restored the second appeal (originally preferred by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the so asserting prior owners of the suit property), and impleaded Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as assignees of the Respondent No. 1 in the main appeal as well as cross-objections who had purchased a part of the suit property.

4. At the outset, we note that the Appellant has inadvertently impugned order dated 13.11.2024 passed in application CM No.8414-C of 2024 which was filed by him for recall of an earlier order dated 13.08.2024 and the same was allowed by the High Court. However, during the Court hearing the Appellant clarified that he is aggrieved with the even date order passed in the applications filed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 which were allowed by the High Court for impleadment as respondents being transferees on the basis of registered sale deeds in the cross-objections and appellants in the main appeal along with applications for condonation of delay and the application for restoration of the main appeal. Though, this appeal as it stands may not be sustainable, however, at the request of the counsel and in the interest of substantive justice, we proceed to examine the matter on merits.

5. Brief facts are that the original Plaintiff-Bhagwan Dai (now deceased) as well as Respondent No.1-Shakuntala Devi were both widows of Girdhari Lal. The suit property belonged to Girdhari Lal and after his death a suit was filed by original plaintiff Bhagwan Dai seeking decree of declaration to the effect that she is the exclusive owner of part of property bearing No.4677 measuring 22 x 22 ft. as well as store measuring 11 x 11 ft., which are in possession of the tenants. She further sought declaration that she is the owner and in possession of remaining part of the buildin