An Order Once Passed Cannot Be Reopened Later by Filing Application Under Order I Rule 10 CPC: Supreme Court Bars Re-Litigation in Execution Proceedings

Even an Erroneous Decision, Once Final, Binds the Parties”: Supreme Court of India delivered a decisive ruling on the scope of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and the application of the doctrine of res judicata in execution proceedings.

Dismissing the appeal of the appellant, the Court held that once a party is impleaded in proceedings and the order attains finality without challenge, it is not open for that party to seek deletion at a later stage by invoking Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. The Court also held that execution of a decree for specific performance includes delivery of possession if the vendor was in exclusive possession, reaffirming well-settled principles under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The Court imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the appellant and directed the executing court to ensure vacant possession within two months.

The dispute originated from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14.06.1996 filed by Prakasan (plaintiff/decree-holder) against Jameela Beevi (original defendant), who had agreed to sell a commercial property in Palakkad, Kerala. The appellant, Sulthan Said Ibrahim, is the grandson of the original defendant and was a witness to the agreement.

The suit culminated in an ex-parte decree in 1998, later restored and finally decreed again on 17.03.2003. The decree attained finality after dismissal of appeals in the High Court and Supreme Court by 2008.

After the death of Jameela Beevi in 2008, her legal heirs, including the appellant, were impleaded in execution proceedings. The appellant did not object to his impleadment at that stage. Several years later, in 2012, he filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking deletion from the array of parties, asserting he was wrongly impleaded and that he had independent tenancy rights in the suit property.

Both the Trial Court and High Court rejected this application, terming it a delaying tactic, and found it barred by res judicata. The present appeal challenged those findings before the Supreme Court.

Whether the appellant’s application for deletion from the party array was barred by res judicata?

The Court answered in the affirmative. Relying on Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar [(2005) 1 SCC 787] and Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [[1960] 3 SCR 590], it reiterated:

“Principles of res judicata apply in different stages of the same proceedings… an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final and is binding at subsequent stages.”

The appellant, having been impleaded after due process, participated in subsequent proceedings without protest, including an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act for rescission of the contract. His belated objection was held to be barred by constructive res judicata.

“Once an order of impleadment has attained finality and was not challenged, the issue cannot be reopened by invoking Order I Rule 10 CPC,” the Court firmly stated [Para 53].

Can Order I Rule 10 CPC be used to revisit an impleadment made under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC?

The Court clarified the distinction between impleadment under Order XXII Rule 4 (legal representative of a deceased party) and deletion under Order I Rule 10(2).

“Order I Rule 10 cannot be used to circumvent or reopen issues concluded under Order XXII Rule 4, especially when the party failed to raise objections at the appropriate time,” the Court noted [Paras 51–52].

The appellant’s reliance on Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre [(2010) 7 SCC 417] and Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya [(2017) 9 SCC 700] was distinguished, as those cases involved preliminary stages or inapplicability of Rule 4, unlike the present scenario where impleadment had been finalised post inquiry.

Whether the appellant had tenancy rights under the Kerala Rent Control Act, 1965?

The Court rejected the claim. The appellant argued that he inherited tenancy from his father and invoked Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

However, the Court held:

“The appellant failed to produce credible evidence of tenancy or exclusive possession, and the claim appears to be an afterthought aimed at delaying execution.” [Para 63]

The Court emphasized that the agreement to sell, to which the appellant was a witness, made no mention of any tenancy—unlike the earlier 1976 deed.

Both the Trial Court and High Court had concurrently rejected the tenancy claim, and the Court refused to interfere with these findings of fact.

Whether possession was implicitly included in the decree for specific performance?

The appellant contended that since the decree did not expressly grant possession, it stood satisfied upon execution of the sale deed.

Rejecting this, the Court reaffirmed its previous ruling in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal [(1982) 3 SCR 94] and Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3584]:

“Where the seller is in possession, a decree for specific performance implies the relief of possession under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act.” [Para 64]

Hence, no separate relief of possession was necessary, and the executing court could deliver possession directly.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the Trial Court and High Court, holding that:

• The application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was barred by res judicata;

• The appellant had no tenancy rights capable of protection under the Kerala Rent Control Act;

• The execution of the decree validly included delivery of possession, despite the absence of an explicit clause.

“Even an erroneous decision remains binding between the same parties concerning the same issue if rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction,” the Court reiterated, quoting S. Ramachandra Rao v. S. Nagabhushana Rao [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1460].

Accordingly, the Court imposed ₹25,000 in costs on the appellant and ordered the Executing Court to ensure delivery of vacant possession within two months, using police assistance if necessary.

Date of Decision: 23rd May 2025