Sailing in Two Boats: Rajasthan High Court Clamps Down on Parallel Legal Remedies

In a stern reminder to litigants attempting to exhaustively manipulate legal channels, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a party cannot simultaneously pursue a Section 47 CPC objection and a statutory appeal against the same judgment and decree. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding at the Jaipur Bench, dismissed the revision petition filed by Charan Singh Khangarot, characterizing the attempt to "sail in two boats" as an abuse of the court’s process.

The Case Background

The dispute arose from a summary suit involving the recovery of Rs. 4,54,12,000, which was decreed by an Executing Court on January 8, 2025. Following the decree, the petitioner, Charan Singh Khangarot, faced execution proceedings.

Khangarot sought to challenge the execution by filing objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( CPC ), arguing, among other things, that he was not personally liable under the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Act, 2008. Crucially, while these objections were being heard, the petitioner had already initiated a statutory appeal before the High Court against the same decree. The Executing Court rejected the Section 47 objections, leading to the current revision petition before the High Court.

The Contentions

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the summary suit prevented him from submitting an effective "leave to defend," and that his retirement from the LLP prior to the issuance of the disputed checks absolved him of personal liability.

Conversely, the respondent’s counsel, appearing as a Senior Advocate, pointed to the signatures on the sale deed and the involvement of the respondent’s wife, arguing that the petitioner was squarely liable under Section 30 of the LLP Act. The respondent firmly contended that the court could not allow the petitioner to invoke parallel, contradictory legal remedies for the same grievance.

The Court’s Reasoning: "Nemo Debet Bis Vexari"

The High Court avoided a deep dive into the merits of the LLP Act liabilities, focusing instead on the procedural integrity of the judicial system. Invoking the Roman legal maxim “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” (no man should be vexed twice for the same cause), Justice Dhand held that a litigant must select their path and stick to it.

The Court held thatonce a party chooses to invoke an appellate remedy, they cannot switch strategies or initiate supplementary objections in a lower forum to hedge their bets. By doing so, they not only burden the court but effectively commit an abuse of the process of law.

Key Observations

The judgment offers clear guidance on the court’s stance regarding procedural abuse:

• "It is settled proposition of law that an aggrieved party cannot be allowed to avail two parallel remedies at the same time against the self same order/judgment passed against him."
• "By availing two parallel remedies, the petitioner intends to sail in two boats and the same cannot be permitted."
• "Essentially a litigant must choose his/her path and he/she cannot be allowed to 'hedge his bets' by way of pursuing two parallel remedies simultaneously for espousing the same cause."
• "Since the petitioner has already availed the parallel remedy of filing statutory appeal... the objection submitted by the petitioner under Section 47 CPC was not maintainable."

The Verdict and Its Impact

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable. However, in an act of procedural fairness, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to agitate all substantive grounds—including those related to his liability under the LLP Act—within the scope of his pending statutory appeal.

This decision serves as a decisive signal to legal practitioners that strategic overlapping of remedies will not be tolerated. Future litigants are now on notice: choose your remedy wisely, or risk having the court close its doors to your procedural maneuvering.