Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Cases Between Same Parties Do Not Automatically Trigger Res Judicata If Issues Are Distinct — In a notable decision Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the principle of res judicata cannot be applied solely because two suits involve the same parties. Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, rejecting the petitioner’s contention that the subsequent eviction suit was barred due to a prior specific performance suit, ruled that “The mere fact that the two cases are between the same parties is not sufficient to hold that the principle of resjudicata would apply.” 
 
The petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale dated 19.07.2003 with the respondents for purchase of a house in Visakhapatnam. He was put in possession under this agreement and filed O.S. No. 320 of 2010 seeking specific performance. However, on 3.10.2017, the suit was dismissed by the trial court, which directed the respondents to refund the advance of Rs. 5,50,000/- with interest. 
 
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed A.S. No. 326 of 2018 before the High Court, along with a stay application. By its order dated 10.04.2018, the High Court noted that the petitioner was in possession and restrained the respondents from alienating the property, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 7,500 per month. 
 
Meanwhile, the respondents filed O.S. No. 473 of 2018 seeking eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner responded by filing I.A. No. 735 of 2023 under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, arguing that the eviction suit was barred by res judicata and the question should be treated as a preliminary issue. 
 
The Principal District Judge rejected the application, holding that “no issue in the suit before the Principal District Judge was either directly or substantially in issue in the earlier suit.” Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court. 
 
The petitioner argued’that once possession was recognized by the High Court and an appeal was pending, the eviction suit was barred as it would violate the principles of res judicata. However, the High Court clarified that the earlier suit involved the issue of specific performance — “whether there was an agreement of sale and whether such agreement should fructify into a deed of sale.” In contrast, the eviction suit raised the question of “whether the petitioner can be evicted from the property on account of the dismissal of the earlier suit.” 
 
The Court observed, “In the circumstances, the principle of res-judicata would not apply as there is no identity of the disputes or issues that arise in these two cases.” 
 
Referring to Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, the Court explained that while all issues in a suit should be decided together, an exception exists when the question concerns jurisdiction or a statutory bar. The petitioner attempted to invoke res judicata as such a bar. 
 
However, Justice Rao ruled, “In view of the above observations, the Court is of the view that the issue of res-judicata does not arise in the present case.” The Court further left open the question “whether the petitioner can be evicted in view of the pendency of the appeal and the earlier interim order.” 
 
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, affirming that res judicata requires not just identity of parties but identity of issues. The Court held that “The mere fact that the two cases are between the same parties is not sufficient to hold that the principle of res-judicata would apply,” and allowed the eviction suit to proceed. 
 
The judgment clarifies that pending appeals in earlier suits do not operate as an automatic bar to eviction actions, especially where the issues in both proceedings are distinct. 
 
 Date of Decision: 28th March 2025