Delhi High Court
Zile Singh vs Mcd on 5 April, 2018
$~R-21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 5th April, 2018
+ RFA 360/2012
ZILE SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: None.
versus
MCD ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. Matter has been called in the regular board. None appears on behalf
of the parties. Trial court record has been received.
2. Suit of the Plaintiff has been dismissed as being barred by limitation.
There was no appearance even on 8th September, 2016 and 11th August,
2016. As recorded in the order dated 27 th August, 2012, the issue of
limitation had already been determined in favour of the Appellant vide order
dated 14th January, 2005 and is extracted hereinbelow:
"Arguments heard on the Issue No.1 "Whether the suit
is within the limitation period." Counsel for plaintiff
refers to letter dated 09.4.01 of the Vigilance Cell of
MCD Slum & JJ Department written to the plaintiff.
The date of this letter is 09.4.01 of the Vigilance Cell of
MCD Slum & JJ Department to the Plaintiff and the
suit of the plaintiff was filed on 29.5.02. It is evident
from this document that the suit of the plaintiff is well
withing the limitation period. Accordingly, preliminary
issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and it is
held that the suit of the plaintiff is well within the
limitation period. On joint request to come up for
arguments on preliminary issue no.2 on 20.4.05."
3. Despite this order, the suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed by the trial
court vide the impugned judgment dated 30 th January, 2012, on the ground
that it was barred by limitation. Under these circumstances, the impugned
judgment on this issue is not sustainable. It has been held in Hope
Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade & Anr. (1999) 5 SCC
590, as under:
"26. It is settled law that 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 demonstrated 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 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 subsequent suits
between the same parties in which the same issue
arises. Section 11 of the CPC contains provisions of
res judicata but these are not exhaustive of the general
doctrine of res judicata. Legal principles of estoppel
and res judicata are equally applicable in proceedings
before administrative authorities as they are based on
public policy and justice."
4. Issues Nos.1, 2 & 3 have already been decided in favour of the
Appellant/Plaintiff as per the impugned judgment, and do not suffer from
any illegality. The finding of the Trial Court qua limitation i.e., Issue No.4
is, however, set aside. There is no cross appeal by the MCD and hence the
suit is decreed for declaration as prayed for. Decree sheet be drawn
accordingly.
5. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
JUDGE
APRIL 05, 2018/dk
