Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court

Once Decided, Forever Barred, In a compelling affirmation of the doctrine of res judicata, the Punjab and Haryana High Court invoking the binding nature of an earlier adjudication from 1999. The Court held that a defendant cannot reopen issues already decided between the same parties and on the same subject matter, calling such attempts “an impermissible resurrection of dead issues.”

Justice Deepak Gupta, while upholding decrees for specific performance of plot sale agreements originally entered into in 1963, held:

“The issue of whether the allotment stood cancelled in 1964 was conclusively adjudicated by this Court in its judgment dated 05.10.1999. That finding has attained finality and binds the parties. The defendant cannot now seek to reopen what has already been put to rest.”

The appeals, which arose from disputes over residential plots in Eros Gardens, Suraj Kund, Faridabad, revolved around the defendant company’s defence that the allotments were automatically cancelled in 1964 for non-payment of an instalment. However, this very issue had been previously litigated and finally decided against the defendant in RSA Nos. 1097 and 1098 of 1999.

The Court stressed:

“Most of the pleas now raised by the appellant stand fully covered by the order dated 05.10.1999 passed by this Court. It is not open to the appellant to re-agitate the same issues merely by dressing them in new language.”

“Litigation Must Come to an End”: Court Enforces Finality in Litigation to Prevent Abuse of Process

Justice Gupta invoked the classic purpose of Section 11 CPC, which embodies the rule of res judicata, observing:

“The doctrine of res judicata is not merely a technical rule of procedure but a fundamental principle ensuring the finality of decisions and preventing multiplicity of litigation. It is rooted in public policy that a party should not be vexed twice over the same cause.”

He further added that allowing the same issue to be re-opened would amount to “mockery of the judicial process”, especially when the prior decision had examined the same facts, documents, and correspondence.

In the 1999 judgment, the Court had already found that there was no evidence to support the claim that the third instalment (towards metalled road construction) was lawfully demanded or that the road was even constructed. The Court had then categorically ruled:

“The correspondence between the parties from 1964 to 1983 clearly shows that the defendant treated the allotment as continuing. The plea of cancellation is an afterthought.”

Now, in 2025, Justice Gupta made it clear that:

“Once a competent Court has found that the contract subsisted and the plea of cancellation is unsustainable, it is not open to the appellant to re-agitate that issue by way of collateral or direct attack in subsequent litigation.”

“Res Judicata Protects Both the Court’s Authority and the Litigant’s Rights”

The judgment reaffirms the binding nature of judicial decisions, not only to protect a litigant’s established rights but to uphold institutional integrity of the justice system. The Court held that:

“Res judicata is a doctrine of repose. It bars re-litigation not merely of decided issues, but of issues which ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings. The defendant’s repeated invocation of the same plea—already rejected—is a classic abuse that the doctrine is meant to prevent.”

Further, the Court rejected the argument that the earlier suit only dealt with declaratory relief and not specific performance, pointing out that:

“The right to seek specific performance was not legally available in 1985. The Court itself held it would be premature. Once that finding has attained finality, it cannot now be used as a sword to defeat the plaintiff’s right.”

“Doctrine of Res Judicata Cannot Be Circumvented by Clever Pleading”

Dismissing the suggestion that different reliefs or legal angles made the present case distinguishable from the 1999 judgment, the Court cautioned:

“A party cannot be allowed to re-litigate the same issue under the guise of a different relief or fresh cause of action when the factual foundation remains unchanged.”

Justice Gupta emphasized that any attempt to bypass the rule of res judicata by formulating new arguments on the same factual nucleus is impermissible:

“Litigation is not an experiment in advocacy; it must be grounded in principle. Once the matter is decided, it is not open to revive what has already been concluded, however creatively it may be repackaged.”

Judgment Reinforces Finality as a Cornerstone of Civil Litigation

Ultimately, the Court dismissed both second appeals, affirming the decrees for specific performance of the plot agreements, and held that all findings from the earlier judgment must be read as operating res judicata. The defendant company’s attempt to revive a stale defence after nearly six decades was rejected as a “misuse of judicial time and a denial of justice to the respondent”.

The decision carries important implications for urban property litigation, especially in matters involving long-standing contractual arrangements, where litigants attempt to reopen settled issues through procedural tactics.

Date of Decision: 11 December 2025