Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Ag. CJ, and Vinay Saraf, J.
A.P. Shukla v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Appeal No. 450 of 2023 (Jabalpur): against the order
dated 8.2.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 2986/2013; Decided on 7.8.2024
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- maintainability of writ petition -- civil suit of appellant/petitioner dismissed by trial Court -- writ petition filed for different cause of action but seeking same relief -- held -- appellant has already availed remedy of filing suit claiming same relief thus writ petition on same ground not maintainable -- it is barred by principle of issue estoppel -- held further -- dispute raised in writ petition is a factual dispute, which Court would not entertain in proceeding under Art. 226 as it involves complicated disputed question of facts. (1999) 5 SCC 590 and 2005(3) JLJ 303 = (2005) 1 SCC 787 followed. [Paras 6 to 8 & 13]
(2) Res Judicata -- encompasses "cause of action estoppel" and "issue estoppel", which bar parties from relitigating same question, even if original determination may be flawed -- legal concepts of issue estoppel and res judicata are distinct but related -- res judicata prevents Courts from re-examining finalized disputes, creating "estoppel by accord" -- issue estoppel stops parties from re-raising previously decided issues -- these principles include cause of action estoppel (preventing assertion or denial of a determined cause of action) and issue estoppel (applying to identical conditions in different causes). (1999) 5 SCC 590 and (2005) 1 SCC 787 followed. (1964) 1 All ER 341 relied on. [Paras 10 & 12]
(3) Estoppel -- there are two types of estoppels -- “cause of action estoppel" and "issue estoppel” -- legal concepts of issue estoppel and res judicata are distinct but related -- res judicata prevents Courts from re-examining finalized disputes, creating "estoppel by accord" -- issue estoppel stops parties from re-raising previously decided issues -- these principles include cause of action estoppel (preventing assertion or denial of a determined cause of action) and issue estoppel (applying to identical conditions in different causes). (1999) 5 SCC 590 and 2005(3) JLJ 303 = (2005) 1 SCC 787 followed. (1964) 1 All ER 341 relied on. [Paras 10 & 12]
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & fjV ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; gksuk & vihykFkhZ@;kph dk flfoy okn fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt fd;k x;k & fjV ;kfpdk fHkUu okn gsrqd ij ijarq mlh vuqrks"k dh bZIlk djrs gq, çLrqr & vfHkfuèkkZjr & vihykFkhZ igys gh mlh vuqrks"k dk nkok djrs gq, okn çLrqr djus ds mipkj dk ykHk ys pqdk gS blfy, mlh vk/kkj ij fjV ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; ugha & ;g fook|d foca/k ds fl)kar }kjk oftZr gS & vkxs vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fjV ;kfpdk esa mBk;k x;k fookn rF;kRed fookn gS] ftls U;k;ky; vuqPNsn 226 ds vèkhu dk;Zokgh esa xzg.k ugha djsxk D;ksafd mlesa rF;ksa dk tfVy fookfnr ç'u varoZfyr gSA ¼1999½ 5 ,lhlh 590 rFkk ¼2005½ 1 ,lhlh 787 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 6 ls 8 ,oa 13½
¼2½ iwoZ U;k; & blesa ^^okn gsrqd foca/k** vkSj ^^fook|d foca/k** lfEefyr gSa- tks i{kdkjksa dks mlh ç'u ij iqu% eqdnek djus ls oftZr djrs gSa] Hkys gh ewy voèkkj.k =qfViw.kZ gks & fook|d foca/k vkSj iwoZU;k; dh fof/kd ladYiuk,a lqfHkUu ijarq lacaf/kr gSa & iwoZ&Uk; U;k;ky;ksa dks vafre gks pqds fooknksa dk iqu% ijh{k.k djus ls jksdrk gS] ftlls ^^le>kSrs dk foca/k** l`ftr gksrk gS & fook|d foca/k i{kdkjksa dks iwoZ esa fofuf'pr fd, tk pqds fook|dksa dks iqu% mBkus ls jksdrk gS & bu fl)karksa esa okn gsrqd foca/k ¼vo/kkfjr fd, tk pqds okn gsrqd dk çk[;ku ;k çR;k[;ku fuokfjr djuk½ rFkk fook|d foca/k ¼fHkUu&fHkUu ekeyksa esa le:i n'kkvksa dks ykxw gksus okyk½ lfEefyr gSaA ¼1999½ 5 ,lhlh 590 rFkk ¼2005½ 1 ,lhlh 787 vuqlfjrA ¼1964½ 1 v‚y bZvkj 341 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 10 ,oa 12½
¼3½ foca/k & nks çdkj ds foca/k gksrs gSa & ^^okn gsrqd foca/k** vkSj ^^fook|d foca/k** & fook|d foca/k vkSj iwoZ&Uk; dh fof/kd ladYiuk,a lqfHkUu ijarq lacaf/kr gSa & iwoZ&Uk; U;k;ky;ksa dks vafre gks pqds fooknksa dk iqu% ijh{k.k djus ls jksdrk gS- ftlls ^^le>kSrs dk foca/k** l`ftr gksrk gS & fook|d foca/k i{kdkjksa dks iwoZ esa fofuf'pr fd, tk pqds fook|dksa dks iqu% mBkus ls jksdrk gS & bu fl)karksa esa okn gsrqd foca/k ¼vo/kkfjr fd, tk pqds okn gsrqd dk çk[;ku ;k çR;k[;ku fuokfjr djuk½ rFkk fook|d foca/k ¼fHkUu&fHkUu ekeyksa esa le:i n'kkvksa dks ykxw gksus okyk½ lfEefyr gSaA ¼1999½ 5 ,lhlh 590 rFkk ¼2005½ 1 ,lhlh 787 vuqlfjrA ¼1964½ 1 v‚y bZvkj 341 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 10 ,oa 12½
ORDER
Sachdeva, Ag C.J., -- 1. Appellant impugns order dated 8.2.2023, whereby the application filed by the respondent No.4 seeking dismissal of writ petition filed by the petitioner has been allowed and the writ petition dismissed.
2. Appellant filed the subject petition, inter alia seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to 3 i.e. Municipal Corporation to allot the extra land adjacent to the appellant’s house measuring 1637.25 Sq. Ft. on the same rate, terms and conditions as has been allotted to respondent No.4.
3. By the subject application, respondent No.4 pointed out that appellant had earlier filed a Civil Suit claiming identical relief of allotment of the adjoining land on perpetual lease basis and as such the claim of the appellant was barred by the principle of issue estoppel.
4. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the Suit of the appellant was dismissed by the trial Court holding that appellant was an unauthorized encroacher upon the land annexed to his alloted house and thus was not entitled for grant of permanent lease of the extra encroached land. Learned Single Judge noticed the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the subject petition had been filed for a different cause of action, but held that petitioner was trying to seek the same relief which had earlier been declined by the trial Court.
5. Before us also, an effort was made by learned counsel for the appellant to contend that the relief sought for in the subject writ petition is different from the relief that had been sought in the suit.
6. We are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant for the reason that the entire dispute in the Suit as well as in the subject petition pertained to the land adjoining the existing land of the appellant. In the civil suit appellant was seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation to allot the adjoining land on perpetual lease basis. In the subject writ petition also, petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to allot the extra land adjacent to the appellant’s house. The other relief sought for by the appellant is with regard to the decision of the respondents in rejecting the representation for allotment of land to the appellant.
7. Substantive relief sought for in the Suit as well as in the Writ Petition is with regard to the allotment of extra land adjacent to the appellant’s house.
8. We concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the Suit and the subject Writ Petition both seek the same relief.
9. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board (1999) 5 SCC 590, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under :
“26. It is settled law that the principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice. Doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of the law of estoppel though these two doctrines differ in some essential particulars. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation. These two aspects are “cause of action estoppel” and “issue estoppel”. These two terms are of common law origin. Again, once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the same suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence directed to showing that the issue was wrongly determined. Their only remedy is to approach the higher forum if available. The determination of the issue between the parties gives rise to, as noted above, an issue estoppel. It operates in any subsequent proceedings in the same suit in which the issue had been determined. It also operates in sub
The doctrine of res judicata bars re-litigation of issues that have been conclusively determined, ensuring judicial finality and preventing abuse of court processes.
The court ruled that an order concerning res-judicata cannot be challenged after significant delay, emphasizing the principles of estoppel by conduct and the need to maintain judicial efficiency.
Dismissal of a suit for a technical or formal defect or for non-compliance with a condition precedent does not constitute a bar to a subsequent suit.
The principle of res judicata bars re-litigation of matters already decided, confirming that the earlier judgment is binding and the current suit is not maintainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of res judicata in a suit for declaration, possession, and injunction, and the binding nature of a finding on an issue relating to ....
The principle of res judicata applies only when the parties, issues, and cause of action are identical.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
