Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court

"Subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC is nothing but a re-agitation of a settled issue under a different statutory provision, which is impermissible and hit by the principles of res judicata." Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated July 27, 2026, held that a pendente lite purchaser whose application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been dismissed on merits cannot file a subsequent application for the same relief under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih observed that even though the two statutory provisions are distinct, they act as overlapping procedural doors for the same relief in such factual matrices, triggering the bar of res judicata.

The origin of the case traces back to a property dispute between the widows of one Girdhari Lal. During the pendency of a regular second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the original defendants sold a portion of the suit property to subsequent purchasers via a registered sale deed in 1990. In 1999, these subsequent purchasers moved an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, which was dismissed by the High Court in 2000 on the grounds of the lis pendens principle. Years later, after the main appeal and cross-objections were dismissed for non-prosecution, the purchasers filed fresh applications under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded and to restore the main appeal.

The primary question before the court was whether an earlier decision based upon an erroneous consideration of facts attracts the doctrine of res judicata. The court was also called upon to determine whether a bar exists on a subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC in the main appeal when a similar plea under Order I Rule 10 was previously rejected.

Erroneous Decisions Still Operate As Res Judicata

The Supreme Court emphatically noted that a judicial decision binds the parties regardless of whether it is right or wrong in its factual appreciation. The bench observed that an error of law or fact committed by a judicial body cannot be impeached otherwise than in an appeal, unless it relates to a matter of jurisdiction. The court stated that since the earlier application under Order I Rule 10 was decided on merits, even if based on an erroneous factual premise regarding a restraint order, the findings attained finality and firmly bind the parties.

"A judicial decision binds whether it is right or wrong."

Scope Of Order I Rule 10 And Order XXII Rule 10

Delving into the statutory framework, the court elucidated that Order I Rule 10 governs the addition of parties who are necessary or proper ab initio, while Order XXII Rule 10 governs situations where an interest devolves upon a third party during the pendency of the suit. The court noted that while the operation of both provisions is fundamentally distinct, the ultimate remedy sought by a pendente lite purchaser under either route is identical, creating a clear procedural overlap in certain factual matrices.

No Second Bites At The Apple Through Different Procedural Doors

The bench observed that if an earlier rejection under Order I Rule 10 was merely on technical or procedural grounds, a subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 might survive. However, where the court had actually examined the transferee's claim and rejected it on merits, a second application raising the same claim based on the same transfer deed is entirely barred. The court underscored that a litigant cannot merely switch the specific legal provision used to bypass a finalized judicial order.

"They are not different causes of action; rather they are different procedural doors to the same relief."

Re-Agitation Of Settled Issues Impermissible

The court held that the underlying issue regarding the subsequent buyer’s right to be impleaded was directly and substantially in issue between the same parties during the earlier round of litigation. Since a court of competent jurisdiction had conclusively decided this against the purchasers, filing a fresh application amounted to an impermissible re-agitation of a settled issue. Relying on precedents like Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan and Others, the bench clarified that allowing such a plea would violate the core tenets of res judicata.

Impleadment In Cross-Objections Maintainable

Despite barring the impleadment in the main appeal, the Supreme Court permitted the purchasers to be impleaded in the cross-objections. The bench noted a crucial procedural fact that the earlier application under Order I Rule 10 in the year 1999 was filed exclusively in the main appeal and not in the cross-objections. Consequently, the court reasoned that the principle of res judicata would not apply to the fresh application filed under Order XXII Rule 10 for impleadment specifically within the cross-objections.

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's impugned order to the extent that it directed the restoration of the main appeal and the impleadment of the subsequent purchasers therein. Conversely, the court sustained and upheld the High Court's direction allowing the impleadment of the subsequent purchasers as respondents in the cross-objections to prevent prejudice and potential collusion.

Date of Decision: 27 July 2026