The invocation of res judicata must be clearly pleaded and framed in issues, ensuring parties have sufficient notice and opportunity to address it, maintaining the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard Dr. K.K. Khanna, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Niranjan Shimpi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The Appellant is the original Plaintiff, and the Respondent is the original Defendant in Suit No. 1165 of 1996.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26 September 2012 made by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Suit No. 1165 of 1996 with a cost of Rs. 1 lakh payable to the High Court Legal Services Authority.

4. Dr. Khanna submitted that the suit has primarily been dismissed by invoking the bar of res judicata. He points out that such a plea was never raised by the respondents (defendants) in their written statement, and consequently, no issue relating to the bar of res judicata was ever raised. He submitted that it was only in the impugned judgment that the suit was dismissed primarily by invoking the bar of res judicata. He submits that on this short ground, the impugned judgment and decree warrant interference.

5. Mr. Shimpi, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the claim in the suit was raised by the appellant/plaintiff in at least four arbitration proceedings. The awards in these arbitration proceedings had fully determined such claims. Therefore, the very institution of this suit was an abuse of the legal process and, in any event, barred by the principles of res judicata or the principles analogous thereto.

6. Mr. Shimpi submitted that the learned Single Judge has, in detail, considered the above aspect and dismissed the suit with costs. He submitted that the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, warrant no interference.

7. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

8. The appellant had instituted Suit No. 1165 of 1996, raising certain monetary claims against the respondents/defendants. The plaint is on record.

9. The respondent/defendants submitted their written statement, which is also part of the record. A review of the written statement filed on 24 January 1997 reveals that a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit has been raised, referencing the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The objection was that the claims cannot be processed in a summary manner under Order XXXVII of the CPC. Significantly, however, throughout the entire written statement, no plea of res judicata is raised by arguing that the awards issued by the arbitrators constitute res judicata concerning the claims raised in this suit.

10. Based on the rival pleadings and as per the draft issues tendered by the plaintiff’s advocate on 14 January 2011, the learned Single Judge of this Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether Defendants deliberately, maliciously and wrongfully denied appointment of arbitrator for disputes with Plaintiff under the terms and conditions of contract.

2. Whether Defendants deliberately, maliciously, and wrongfully forced costly and time consuming litigation on the Plaintiff with regard to appointment of arbitrator as per terms of contract.

3. Whether Defendants deliberately, maliciously and wrongfully denied/delayed payment of even award amounts to the Plaintiff.

4. Whether eight bank guarantees totaling about 16,77,421.00 issued by bank Oriental Bank of Commerce alread