MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

A Suit Barred By Res Judicata, Court Can Not Permit To File Fresh Suits: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal decision, the Kerala High Court, through the honorable Mr. Justice P. Somarajan, has pronounced a landmark judgment redefining the parameters of res judicata and the permissible grant of permission for fresh suits within decrees. The case at hand, CRP No. 237 of 2022, involved a contentious issue of granting permission for a fresh suit within a decree, and the court’s observations are expected to have far-reaching implications.

The judgment clarified the fundamental principles surrounding the doctrine of res judicata, which ensures the finality of judgments and prevents parties from re-litigating settled issues. The court’s decision centered on the practice of granting liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action within a decree, a practice that was found to be in violation of established legal principles.

In a noteworthy observation, the court stated, “The mere fact that the decree covers formal expression of an adjudication pertaining to ‘any of the matters in controversy’ as per the definition given under Section 2(2) CPC does not mean that the court can adjudicate some of the issues involved in the suit and leave open other issues within its competence for adjudication in a separate suit.”

This key observation underscores the court’s determination to uphold the sanctity of final judgments, asserting that a decree must conclusively determine all matters in controversy and cannot be a basis for initiating a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed the significance of adhering to binding precedent, emphasizing that lower courts are obligated to follow established legal positions set by higher courts. The court’s decision to set aside an earlier order that failed to adhere to established legal principles reaffirms the importance of respecting legal precedents.

The judgment also displayed a commitment to dispute resolution through settlement, as the court granted a remand to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. Parties involved in the case are expected to appear before the trial court on 25th September 2023, with a two-week window to reach a settlement. If no settlement is achieved within this period, the application challenging the suit’s maintainability will be allowed, resulting in the dismissal of the suit.

This landmark judgment not only clarifies the legal intricacies of res judicata but also underscores the significance of adhering to established legal principles, ultimately contributing to the efficiency and fairness of the judicial process.

Date of Decision: 22n August 2023

KARLOSE  vs STELLA LASAR

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Karlos_Vs_Stella_22Aug23_KerlHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News