Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Kuldeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
Kishan Kumar - Respondent
CM(M) 1367 of 2022
Decided On : 06-12-2022
A petition challenging a settled judgment is not maintainable if the issue has been determined up to the Supreme Court, emphasizing the finality of such judgments.
Headnote:(A) Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Jurisdiction of High Court - Modification of judgment previously adjudicated is not maintainable - The court affirmed that the issue regarding the property had been settled all the way to the Supreme Court - No merit found in challenging the trial court’s order on the same grounds. (Paras 3-8)
(B) Legal certainty - Ensuring that matters settled by higher courts are not re-litigated in lower courts unless there are new grounds or material facts.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the trial court’s order modifying a prior judgment concerning government land, which had already been dismissed by appellate levels including the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The court determined the petition under Article 227 was not maintainable due to the settled nature of the issue up to the Supreme Court.
Issues: Whether the petition to modify a settled judgment is maintainable when the issue has been previously determined.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once a judgment has been settled by the Supreme Court, it remains binding and cannot be re-opened in lower courts without valid reasons.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. chronology of prior judgments and appeals. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. challenge to settled government property issue. (Para 7) |
| 3. petition dismissed as not maintainable. (Para 8) |
| 4. dismissal with no costs. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 52836/2022 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 1367/2022 & CM APPL. 52835/2022 (for stay)
3. Petitioner challenges the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the application seeking modification of the judgment dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court was sought to be modified.
4. The modification, as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner has already been settled by the judgment dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court in a suit, which was subsequently challenged before this Court in RFA 1051/2017 and by the judgment dated 18.12.2017, this Court had dismissed the aforesaid appeal.
5. From the record, it is also apparent that the petitioner herein had further challenged the judgment dated 18.12.2017 of this Court by way of SLP (C) No. 7650/2019, which SLP was also dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2019.
6. Learned Trial Court in the instant impugned order has considered the issue and recorded the trail of the original suit right up till the dismissal by the Supreme Court on 14.08.2019.
7. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order on the same issue in respect of 140 Sq. Yards of property being the Government land, which is no more res integra and it is settled right up till the Supreme Court.
8. Having regard to the above, it is clear that the present petition under Article 227 is not maintainable either on facts or on law.
9. This Court is refraining from imposing any costs upon the petitioner and the petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
