The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group!

Supreme Court Overturns High Court Decision, Revives Eviction Petition Previously Barred by Res Judicata

03 September 2024 9:42 AM

By: Admin


On 29 March 2023, In a significant ruling in Prem Kishore & Ors. Vs Brahm Prakash & Ors., the Supreme Court of India has revived an eviction petition, setting aside a previous High Court decision that deemed the second eviction petition to be barred by the principle of res judicata.

The appellants, Prem Kishore and others, filed a second eviction petition in 2001 after their father, the original plaintiff, failed to establish a landlord-tenant relationship in the first eviction petition filed in 1996. The respondents argued that the second eviction petition was barred by res judicata, as the landlord-tenant relationship issue had already been adjudicated in the first petition.

The Additional Rent Controller declined the application to reject the eviction petition, believing the second petition was based on a fresh notice and separate cause of action. However, the High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, finding the second eviction petition barred by res judicata.

In the appeal, the appellants argued that the High Court erred in finding the second eviction petition barred by res judicata and incorrectly applied Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC. The respondents, on the other hand, supported the High Court's decision, arguing that the Rent Controller's order in the first petition was under Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC, and the finding on the landlord-tenant relationship was on merits.

The Supreme Court observed that for res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. Moreover, the suit should have been decided on merits, and the decision should have attained finality.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court committed an error in interpreting the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller as one under Rule 3 of Order 17 of the CPC. The Supreme Court concluded that Rule 2 of Order 17 was the applicable rule in this case.

The Court held that the order passed by the Rent Controller in the first eviction petition did not purport to be a final disposal of the suit; it merely stopped the proceedings and did nothing more. This was not a final decision of the suit within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 8 and Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC. The suit was revived. Appeal Allowed.

D.D- 29-Mar-2023

Prem Kishore & Ors. Vs Brahm Prakash & Ors

Similar News