The dismissal of an execution petition due to non-payment of a pre-condition (ad valorem court fee) does not attract the doctrine of res judicata against a subsequent application to fulfill that condition, provided no specific time limit for such deposit was prescribed in the decree.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to assail the order dated 06.02.2026 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Executing Court, whereby the application filed by respondent No. 1–decree holder seeking permission to deposit ad valorem court fee in terms of the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2014 (Annexure P-1), as affirmed on 04.09.2015 (Annexure P-2), has been allowed.

2. To summarize the relevant facts are that the suit for possession instituted by the respondents–plaintiffs was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 24.02.2014, subject to the condition that ad valorem court fee on the suit property shall be deposited prior to initiation of execution proceedings. The appeal preferred by the present petitioners was dismissed on 04.09.2015, and the Regular Second Appeal was also dismissed in limine on 11.02.2019.

3. It is undisputed that the decree holder instituted execution proceedings on 05.09.2016 without depositing the requisite ad valorem court fee. Although the court fee was subsequently deposited on 29.01.2018, the Executing Court declined to treat the same as compliance of the condition stipulated in the decree and, consequently, dismissed the execution petition vide order dated 04.05.2019 on the ground that the decree was not executable for non-compliance of the pre-condition regarding prior deposit of court fee. Thereafter, the decree holder moved an application dated 27.05.2019 seeking permission to deposit the requisite court fee. The said application was contested by the petitioners. Meanwhile, Revision Petition No. 7412 of 2023 filed by the decree holder against the order dated 04.05.2019 was disposed of with a direction to the Executing Court to decide the pending application in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the Executing Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the application vide impugned order dated 06.02.2026 permitting deposit of ad valorem court fee. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order is legally unsustainable as the issue regarding deposit of court fee already stood finally adjudicated by the order dated 04.05.2019 dismissing the execution petition. It is argued that the subsequent application is barred by the principles of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly in view of Explanation VII, which extends the doctrine to execution proceedings. Reliance is placed upon Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar , AIR 1964 SC 993; Pradeep Mehra v. Harijivan J. Jethwa (since deceased) through LRs, 2023 (4) RCR (Civil) 835; Sharada Sanghi v. Asha Agarwal , 2026 INSC 292; and Barkat Ali v. Badri Narain (dead) by LRs, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 117, to contend that the principle of res judicata applies even at subsequent stages of the same proceedings and bars re-adjudication of issues finally decided.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have carefully perused the paper-book.

6. There is no dispute with the settled proposition that the principles of res judicata apply even to successive stages of the same litigation, and that issues finally adjudicated cannot be re-agitated, having attained finality under Section 11 CPC read with Explanation VII thereof, which extends the doctrine to execution proceedings as well.