In a recent ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court’s judgment dismissing the suit as barred by res judicata. The court held that since the cause of action in the prior suit was distinct from the present case and the restoration of the earlier appeal was still pending, the trial court should have stayed the proceedings instead of dismissing the suit outright.
Brief Facts:
The appellants/plaintiffs filed a civil Suit, seeking eviction, vacant possession, damages, and a permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. They contended that respondents No.1 and 2 were occupants under permissive possession, whereas respondents No.3 and 4 were encroachers.
Earlier, respondents No.1 to 3 had filed a civil suit, seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction based on adverse possession. This suit was dismissed on 29.08.2009, and the subsequent First Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.10.2016. Meanwhile, the appellants filed the present suit. The trial court, by its judgment dated 15.12.2015, dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by res judicata. Hence, the present appeal
Contentions of the Appellants:
The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the trial court erred in applying res judicata, as the earlier suit was based on adverse possession, while the present suit was for eviction based on ownership rights. Since the legal claims were different, res judicata did not apply. The appellants also submitted that First Appeal had been dismissed for want of prosecution, but an application for its restoration was pending.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel for the respondents supported the trial court’s decision, arguing that Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) applied, as the plaintiffs could have raised their claims in the earlier suit. Since they failed to do so, the present suit was barred by res judicata.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that res judicata applies only when the cause of action, legal issues, and subject matter in both suits are substantially the same. The respondents/defendants No.1 to 3 earlier filed a civil suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and permanent injunction. The trial Court dismissed the said suit, against which First Appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed for want of prosecution, and the application for restoration of the Appeal was pending consideration.
The Court observed that the proper remedy in such cases is to apply Section 10 CPC, which allows for a stay of proceedings when a related matter is pending. The Court said that the trial Court ought to have applied the provisions of Section 10 of the Code for staying the suit, instead of dismissing the suit at that stage on the ground that principle of res judicata would apply.
Decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, allowing the appeal, set aside the trial court’s judgment, and restored the civil suit.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Shukla & Anr. vs. Smt. Shantibai Sharma (Died) & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Case No.: FIRST APPEAL NO: 23/2016
Advocate for the Appellants: Shri B.P. Sharma with Shri Karunendra Narayan Singh
Advocate for the Respondents: Shri Gyan Prakash Shukla
Picture Source :
