Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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