Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

If the suit is barred by Res Judicata, an indigent suit application can be denied- Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court noted that if it is determined that the lawsuit is preempted by res judicata, an application to sue as an indigent under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be denied.

The plaintiffs in this case submitted an application to be granted the right to launch a lawsuit under Order 33 rule 1 CPC. The Trial Court denied the motion on the grounds that the lawsuit was frivolous, an abuse of the legal system, and the court, and that res judicata barred it. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court upheld this order.

The plaintiffs-appellants argued before the Apex Court that it was improper for the Trial Court to comment on the merits of the case, the likelihood of the plaintiff's success, and/or whether or not the case is preempted by res judicata at the time the application to sue as an indigent person was being considered. It was said that at the most, the court may deny the request to proceed as an indigent plaintiff. In that instance, the plaintiffs could pay the necessary court costs and the case would then move forward. The defendants-respondents defended the contested orders and argued that res judicata precluded the lawsuit, making it subject to dismissal.

Thus, the questions were: (1) Could the Trial Court have denied the application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC to suit as indigent persons on the aforementioned ground?

(2) What order can be made even in cases where the application to suit as an indigent person is denied, and what remedy is available to the plaintiff/(s)?

The bench went to the pertinent clauses of Order 33 CPC in order to respond to these questions. It was noted that the grounds listed in Order 33 Rule 5 CPC can be used to deny a request made under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC for permission to suit as an indigent person.

The court made it clear that any comments made by the Trial Court and the High Court regarding the suit being dismissed due to res judicata and/or lack of a cause of action would only be considered in evaluating the motion to sue as an indigent person. The bench gave the plaintiffs an additional four weeks to pay the necessary court fees, taking into consideration Order 33 Rule 15 and 15A CPC. The bench also ordered that, upon payment of those court fees, the suit shall be deemed to have been filed on the date the application for permission to sue as an indigent person was submitted.

Solomon Selvaraj vs Indrani Bhagawan Singh

Latest Legal News