Constructive res judicata bars a later interest claim that should have been raised in the earlier final proceeding.

A subsequent claim for interest arising from the same earlier proceeding was not maintainable because the claimant had already pursued related relief to final adjudication without seeking interest at that stage. The later claim was therefore barred by constructive res judicata, and the rule against splitting claims under Order II Rule 2 CPC also precluded a fresh proceeding for a relief that could and ought to have been claimed earlier. The separate claim for interest was rightly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's claim for interest was barred by constructive res judicata and by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The claim for interest arose from the same proceedings in which the respondent had earlier sought relief consequent upon reinstatement and payment of arrears. Since the respondent did not seek interest when the earlier relief was pursued and the earlier adjudication had become final, the subsequent claim was hit by constructive res judicata. The separate pursuit of interest was also barred because the procedural rule against splitting of claims precludes a party from later asserting a relief that ought to have been claimed in the earlier action.

Conclusion: The subsequent claim for interest was not maintainable and was rightly rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A relief that could and ought to have been claimed in an earlier final proceeding cannot be pursued later in a separate proceeding, as it is barred by constructive res judicata and the prohibition against splitting claims.

---