Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Kaladevi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2880
1 WP-4763-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 11th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4763 of 2025
SMT KALADEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gurusharan Kaur Sachdeva - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shailendra Singh Kushwaha - Government Advocate for the
State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
seeking the following reliefs:-
"यािचकाकता वन तापूवक िनवेदन करती है क यािचकाकता क यािचका
वीकार क जाकर ितयािचकाकतागण ारा यािचकाकता को भुगतान क
गयी फैिमली पशन एवम अ य रािश पर 18 ितशत वा षक क दर से याज
रािश का भुगतान कये जाने हे तु ितयािचकाकतागण को िनदिशत कये
जाने क कृ पा करे । अ य सहायता जो करण क प र थितय मे माननीय
यायालय उिचत समझे यािचकाकता के हत मे दान कये जाने क कृ पा
करे ।"
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that in compliance of order
dated 29/03/2022 passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1693/2019
pension and other consequential benefits to petitioner were paid, however, the
interest has not been paid, therefore, the present petition has been filed.
3. Counsel for petitioner was directed to address this Court with regard to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2880
2 WP-4763-2025
applicability of the principle of constructive res judicata.
4. The Supreme Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State
Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior, And Others reported in (1987) 1
SCC 5 has held as under:-
"9. The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after
withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the
permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition
in the High Court under that Article. On this point the decision
in Daryao case is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the
principle underlying rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be
extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of
withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata
but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would
also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting
tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to
permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again.
While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court
without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other
remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India since such withdrawal does not amount to
res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner
in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when
he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the
High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not
maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since
the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to
file a fresh petition. We, however. make it clear that whatever we
have stated in this order may not be considered as being applicable
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2880
3 WP-4763-2025
to a writ petition involving the personal liberty of an individual in
which the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of
habeas corpus or seeks to enforce the fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution since such a case
stands on a different footing altogether. We, however leave this
question open."
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Omprakash Verma And Others Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh And others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 158 has held as
under:-
75. As pointed out by learned Attorney General, the matter can be
looked at from another angle. The proceedings in the instant case are
barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. The validity of the
ULC Act was squarely in issue. The effect of allowing the State
appeals in Audikeshava Reddy case is that all contentions which
parties might and ought to have litigated in the previous litigation
cannot be permitted to be raised in subsequent litigation.
76. In Forward Construction Co. vs. Prabhat Mandal, (1986) 1 SCC
100, this Court held that an adjudication is conclusive and binding not
only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter
which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had it
decided. The following portion of the judgment is relevant which reads
as under: (SCC p. 112, para 20)
"20. So far as the first reason is concerned, the High Court
in our opinion was not right in holding that the earlier
judgment would not operate as res judicata as one of the
grounds taken in the present petition was conspicuous by
its absence in the earlier petition. Explanation IV to Section
11 CPC provides that any matter which might and ought to
have been made ground of defence or attack in such former
suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and
substantially in issue in such suit. An adjudication is
conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter
determined but as to every other matter which the parties
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2880
4 WP-4763-2025
might and ought to have litigated and have had it decided
as incidental to or essentially connected with the subject-
matter of the litigation and every matter coming within the
legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of
the matters of claim or defence. The principle underlying
Explanation IV is that where the parties have had an
opportunity of controverting a matter that should be taken
to be the same thing as if the matter had been actually
controverted and decided. It is true that where a matter has
been constructively in issue it cannot be said to have been
actually heard and decided. It could only be deemed to
have been heard and decided."
77. In Hoystead vs. Commissioner of Taxation (1926) AC 155, the
Privy Council observed (AC pp. 165-66)
"......Parties are not permitted to begin fresh litigations because of new
views that they may entertain of the law of the case, or new versions
which they present as to what should be a proper apprehension by the
Court of the legal result either of the construction of the documents or
the weight of certain circumstances. If this were permitted, litigations
would have no end, except when legal ingenuity is exhausted. It is a
principle of law that this cannot be permitted, and there is abundant
authority reiterating that principle."
78. As rightly observed by the High Court, what is utmost relevant is
the final judgment of the superior Court and not the reasons in support
of that decision. Apart from the legal position and the effect of
allowing of the appeals and dismissing the writ petitions by this Court,
the contention with regard to the land being agricultural land was
raised in the writ petitions which were the subject matter of the appeals
filed in this Court. In these proceedings, the State categorically took
the stand that the lands are not agricultural. It was brought to our
notice that the present appellants as respondents in the earlier round
did not urge this plea before this Court and no such arguments were
advanced before this Court. In view of the same, the appellants are not
entitled to raise any such contention now. The effect of allowing the
said appeals is that W.P.Nos. 18385 of 1993 and 238 of 1994 stood
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2880
5 WP-4763-2025
dismissed."
6. The Supreme Court in the case of M.J. Exporters Private Limited Vs.
Union of India and Others reported in (2021) 13 SCC 543 has held as under:-
"15. In these circumstances, we feel that when this issue was raised
and abandoned in the first writ petition which was dismissed as
withdrawn, the principles of constructive res judicata which are laid
down under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
and which principles are extendable to writ proceedings as well as held
by this Court in Sarguja Transport Service vs. STAT would squarely
be applicable."
7. Since, the relief which was directly and substantially involved in
previous litigation was not granted to petitioner, therefore, present petition would
be barred by the principle of constructive res judicata .
8. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
PjS/-
