Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi 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