Industrial Units In MIDC Areas Exempt From Municipal Property Tax Only As Long As MIDC Provides Amenities: Supreme Court MIDC Service Charges Are Fees For Services, Not Taxes; Industrial Units Must Pay Municipal Property Tax: Supreme Court Public Servants Have No Vested Right To Be Considered For Promotion Under Repealed Rules: Supreme Court IBC | Successful Resolution Applicant Cannot Renege From Approved Plan By Citing Pending Litigations Or Letter Of Intent Conditions: Supreme Court Payment Of 93% Sale Consideration Demonstrates Readiness & Willingness For Specific Performance: Supreme Court Delay In Issuing Legal Notice No Ground To Deny Specific Performance If Suit Filed Within Limitation: Supreme Court Brandishing Pistol At Children During Abduction Inherently Constitutes Threat To Cause Death Or Hurt: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 364A IPC Lack Of CDR Records For 2003-Era Kidnapping Not Fatal To Prosecution If Oral Evidence Of Ransom Is Cogent: Supreme Court Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage On Ground Of Irretrievable Breakdown Under Article 142 Despite Wife's Opposition To Decree Failure To Conduct TIP For Unknown Accused Diminishes Evidentiary Value Of Dock Identification: Supreme Court Acquits Rape-Murder Convicts On Death Row Padded Evidence Created By Investigating Agency To Bolster Prosecution Case Fatal To Conviction In Circumstantial Evidence Cases: Supreme Court CCI Has No Inherent Power To Keep Combination Approval In Abeyance Or Order Re-Notification Without Express Statutory Authority: Supreme Court CCI Cannot Reopen Concluded Merger Approvals After One Year; Characterization Dispute In Filing Is Not 'Non-Disclosure': Supreme Court Sets Aside Orders Against Amazon Stamping Defects Are Curable, Arbitrators Empowered To Decide Such Objections Under Section 16 A&C Act: Supreme Court Rejection Of Section 16 Objection By Arbitrator Cannot Be Challenged Under Article 226/227; Aggrieved Party Must Wait For Final Award: Supreme Court Police Parading Accused Or Orchestrating Social Media Condemnation Is Extra-Legal Punishment, Violates Article 21: Rajasthan High Court Inclusion Of Hash Value In Electronic Record Certificates Is Essential For Data Integrity; Not Arbitrary: Supreme Court Judiciary Not Above Criticism; Portraying Imaginary Corrupt Court In Films Doesn't Scandalize Real Courts: Madras 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