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
(1) Res judicata – A judicial decision binds whether it is right or wrong – Ruling of a Coordinate Bench binds subsequent Coordinate Benches.
(2) Impleadment of subsequent purchasers in main appeal – Dismissal of application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC does not, as a general rule, operate as res judicata to bar subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC.
(3) Transferee pendente lite is entitled to be heard on merits in a case where his predecessor in interest was made a party.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Res judicata – Doctrine of res judicata is applicable on subsequent stage(s) of same proceedings if, question or issue involved has been decided at an earlier stage of same litigation – A judicial decision binds whether it is right or wrong – An error of law or fact, committed by a judicial or quasi-judicial body cannot be impeached otherwise than in appeal, unless it relates to a matter of jurisdiction – Ruling of a Coordinate Bench binds subsequent Coordinate Benches – To attract doctrine of res judicata there must be conscious adjudication of an issue – Plea of res judicata cannot be claimed unless judgment carries expression of opinion on merits. (Paras 27 and 28)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 read with Section 146 – Impleadment of subsequent purchasers in main appeal – Dismissal of application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC does not, as a general rule, operate as res judicata to bar subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 – Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC is a specific enabling provision governing devolution of interest during pendency of a suit or appeal – Its operation is distinct from general joinder of party power under Order I Rule 10 – Court's power under Order XXII Rule 10 is triggered by a factual event by an assignment, creation, or devolution of interest and not merely by a party's desire to join proceedings – Only a prima facie satisfaction of devolution is required and no detailed inquiry into title is conducted at this stage – The two provisions address fundamentally distinct legal situations, and a rejection under one does not constitute a final adjudication on merits of the other – Both legal provisions are distinct in nature but, remedy sought is similar in nature (Impleadment of a party) – Sope of Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 do overlap in certain factual matrices. (Paras 34 and 35)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 read with Order XXII Rule 10 and Order I Rule 10 – Res judicata – Impleadment of subsequent purchasers in main appeal – Where Order I Rule 10 application was considered and rejected on its merits and that order was not appealed or reviewed, second application under Order XXII Rule 10 raising claim based on same transfer, same interest, same facts would ordinarily be barred by principles of res judicata as issue has been decided on merits and attained finality – Subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC is nothing but a re-agitation of a settled issue under a different statutory provision, which is impermissible and hit by principles of res judicata – However, this bar would not apply if, earlier rejection was on a technical or procedural ground – Transferee pendente lite is entitled to be heard on merits in a case where his predecessor in interest was made a party. (Paras 36, 38 and 43)

Facts of the case:

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

Findings of Court:

Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court is set aside in part, to the extent that it directs restoration of main appeal and impleadment of subsequent purchasers therein. Conversely, High Court order allowing application for impleadment of subsequent purchasers as respondents in cross-objections is sustained and upheld.

Result : Appeal partly allowed.