Constructive res judicata bars relitigation where earlier proceedings already settled the core property dispute and finality is preserved.

A High Court may, in an appropriate case, withdraw a pending suit under Section 24 CPC on its own motion and decide threshold issues where the material facts are already admitted and the controversy can be resolved on preliminary issues. The Court also noted that res judicata and constructive res judicata can bar a fresh suit when the same dispute, including connected objections on locus standi and adverse possession, has effectively been decided in earlier revenue or writ proceedings. Repeated attempts to reopen a final controversy may be treated as an abuse of process, leaving no maintainable cause to relitigate the matter.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could suo motu withdraw a pending suit to itself and decide it on preliminary issues under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Whether the suit was barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata and liable to be rejected as an abuse of process, including on the plea of want of locus standi and adverse possession.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could suo motu withdraw a pending suit to itself and decide it on preliminary issues under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the High Court, on its own motion and without notice, to withdraw any suit pending in a subordinate court and try or dispose of it itself. The suit had already reached a stage where the core disputes were capable of being decided on admitted facts and preliminary issues. Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits determination of issues such as maintainability and res judicata at the threshold, and no inflexible procedure was required in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to withdraw the suit and decide it.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata and liable to be rejected as an abuse of process, including on the plea of want of locus standi and adverse possession.

Analysis: The disputes between the parties had already been adjudicated in prior revenue and writ proceedings, including the cancellation of allotment and mutation matters. The appellant had an to raise all objections in those proceedings but did not do so. The question of the respondent's status as heir of the original allottee was intimately connected with those proceedings, and the appellant could not relitigate the same controversy in a fresh suit. The plea of adverse possession was also inconsistent with the appellant's own case that he derived possession through allotment and that the original allottee had title. The Court also treated the repeated litigation as an attempt to keep the controversy alive despite prior final adjudication.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by constructive res judicata and amounted to an abuse of process, and the appellant had no maintainable cause to reopen the issue.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was upheld and the challenge failed, as the dispute had already attained finality in earlier proceedings and the fresh suit was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may, in an appropriate case, withdraw a pending suit under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and decide it on preliminary issues where the controversy is already concluded by earlier proceedings; repeated litigation on the same matter is barred by constructive res judicata and may be terminated as an abuse of process.

---