Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2057
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Vinod Madan Lal Nawandhar - Appellant
Vs.
Vidisha Garg And Others - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 18 of 2019
Decided On : 16-09-2019
Varun Goswami, Adv., Sahil Agarwal, Adv., S.S. Dahiya, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of issue estoppel, res judicata, and Order II Rule 2 CPC in determining the admissibility of the respondent's second suit. The judgment emphasizes the finality of previous litigation and the bar on relitigating the same issues.
Headnote:
Issue Estoppel - Civil Procedure - Order VII Rule 11, Section 11 of CPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the principles of issue estoppel, res judicata, and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It highlighted the application of these principles in determining the admissibility of the second suit filed by the respondent. The court referred to the judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts and the Supreme Court, emphasizing the finality of the previous litigation and the bar on relitigating the same issues.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the respondent's suit was barred on the principles of issue estoppel, res judicata, and limitation. The respondent had filed a previous suit seeking declaration and injunction with regard to the same shares, which was dismissed after a full-fledged trial, and the title to the shares was held to be that of the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second suit filed by the respondent was barred by the principles of issue estoppel and res judicata as the facts and issues were identical to the first suit, which had been dismissed after a full-fledged trial and upheld by the Supreme Court. The court held that the application under Order VII Rule 11 filed by the petitioner should have been allowed, and accordingly, the respondent's suit was held to be barred by law and the plaint was rejected.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of the respondent's second suit in light of the principles of issue estoppel, res judicata, and Order II Rule 2 CPC. The court analyzed whether the second suit was barred by law and whether the application under Order VII Rule 11 should have been allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the application of the principles of issue estoppel, res judicata, and Order II Rule 2 CPC, emphasizing the finality of the previous litigation and the bar on relitigating the same issues. The court held that the second suit was clearly barred by law and the application under Order VII Rule 11 should have been allowed.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the application under Order VII Rule 11 filed by the petitioner was allowed. The respondent's suit was held to be barred by law, and accordingly, the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The petition was allowed in the above terms.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
C.R.P. 18/2019 & CM APPL.3398/2019 (stay)
Petitioner impugns order dated 26.09.2018, whereby, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Suit filed by the respondent was barred on the principles of issue estoppel, res judicata order II Rule 2 CPC and also limitation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent had earlier filed a Suit in the year 1993 seeking a declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction with regard to the same shares with respect to which the present Suit has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent, who is a bonafide purchaser of the shares, was not a party to the suit filed by the petitioner against his purchasers and as such could not take the defence.
5. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the year 1993 with the following prayer:-
"(a) To pass a decree of declaration declaring the plaintiff a owner and holder of all the 300 equity shares bearing certificates Nos. 102052- 57, distinctive Nos. 11341914- 11342213, including benefits therefore, if any, declared or to be declared by defendant No.l in future, issued by M/s Hero Honda Motors Limited (Defendant No.l)
(b) To pass a declaration of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant No.l, its servants, agents, attorney, authorized representatives, etc. from proceeding/ processing and / or registering the transfer of any of the above mentioned 300 shares as detailed in para 1 of the plaint without due process of law and also without the consent of the plaintiff;
(c) To pass a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant No.l to issue duplicate share certificates in respect of the above mentioned 300 shares as detailed in para 1 of the plaint, including the benefits of dividends, rights and bonus thereof, if any, declared after 29.10.1990, or to be declared in future by the defendant No.l.
(d) To grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants."
6. Said suit was dismissed by a judgment dated 19.10.2013 holding that the respondent had clearly concealed the material facts regarding the decree already having been passed by a competent Court with regard to the shares in question in favour of the present petitioner.
7. Said judgment was taken up in appeal by the respondent and the Appellate Court, by order dated 18.08.2015, specifically held as under:-
"14. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the plaintiff has failed to discharge her initial burden to show that shares were purchased by her from the defendant no. 3 i.e. Garg Shares Trading Company vide bill no. 1695 dated 29.10.1990 by making payment vide cheque no. 991108 dated 07.10.1990. Accordingly, there is no need to proceed further whether the shares were fraudulently transferred or not in favour of the defendants no. 4 and 5 or whether there are concealment of material fact on behalf of the appellant. The appellant has failed to prove his case on merits as well. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed without costs in view of the reasons given above in addition to the reasons given by Ld. trial court."
8. Thereafter the respondent filed a Regular Second Appeal before this Court and by judgment dated 30.11.2015, the Court held as under:-
11. On the other hand, defendant no.4, admittedly, had a decree passed by a competent civil court in his favour in respect of the same shares upon which the plaintiff had laid a claim. Even after the plaintiff learnt of the said decree, she did not take any steps to assail the same. The judgment and decree passed by the civil court could not have been nullified by filing another suit when no declaration was sought in respect of the said judgment and decree on the ground that the same was obtained fraudulently. Thus, the final
