1964 (12) TMI 54 - SC - Indian Laws

Writ petition decisions bind subsequent suits: High Court affirms res judicata principle

The decision of the High Court on the merits in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution operates as res judicata in a subsequent regular ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether a decision of the High Court on merits in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution operates as res judicata in a regular suit with respect to the same matter between the same parties.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Res Judicata to Writ Petitions and Regular Suits:The primary issue in this case is whether a decision by the High Court on the merits in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution operates as res judicata in a subsequent regular suit involving the same matter between the same parties. The appellant argued that the decision in a writ application should not operate as res judicata in a regular suit, particularly when the writ petition and the suit seek identical reliefs on identical grounds.The Court observed that the general principles of res judicata are not confined to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and can apply to decisions made in proceedings other than suits, including writ petitions. The Court reiterated that the principle of res judicata is based on public policy to bring finality to litigation and prevent harassment of parties through multiple litigations on the same issue.The Court emphasized that a decision on the merits in a writ petition, after full contest and considering all relevant matters, should be treated as res judicata in a subsequent regular suit. The Court stated, 'We therefore hold that on the general principle of res judicata, the decision of the High Court on a writ petition under art. 226 on the merits on a matter after contest will operate as res judicata in a subsequent regular suit between the same parties with respect to the same matter.'2. Arguments Against Applicability of Res Judicata:The appellant contended that applying res judicata to writ petitions would be dangerous as it would prevent parties from seeking relief in regular suits. The appellant also argued that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and the High Court may refuse to exercise it for various reasons, such as laches or availability of an alternative remedy. Therefore, a decision in a writ petition should not preclude a subsequent suit.The Court rejected these arguments, stating that the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction does not affect the binding nature of a decision made on merits. The Court noted that even if the High Court refuses to exercise its jurisdiction on discretionary grounds, it does not negate the principle of res judicata if the matter has been decided on merits.3. Constructive Res Judicata:The appellant argued that the doctrine of constructive res judicata should not apply when a dispute is first decided in a writ petition and later in a regular suit. The Court clarified that this case does not involve the application of constructive res judicata, as the matter in question was directly and substantially in issue in both the writ petition and the subsequent suit.4. Specific Provisions of CPC vs. General Principles of Res Judicata:The Court discussed the relationship between Section 11 of the CPC and the general principles of res judicata. It was argued that Section 11 is not exhaustive and does not preclude the application of general principles of res judicata to suits when the earlier decision is made in proceedings other than suits. The Court stated, 'The provisions of s. 11 C.P.C. are not exhaustive with respect to an earlier decision operating as res judicata between the same parties on the same matter in controversy in a subsequent regular suit.'5. Case Law and Precedents:The Court referred to several precedents, including decisions of the Privy Council and previous judgments of the Supreme Court, to support its conclusion that the principle of res judicata applies to decisions made in writ petitions. The Court cited cases such as Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao, Mst. Bhagwati v. Mst. Ram Kali, and Rai Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen to illustrate that decisions in proceedings other than suits can operate as res judicata in subsequent suits.Conclusion:The Court concluded that the decision of the High Court on the writ petition under Article 226, which was made on merits after full contest, operates as res judicata in the subsequent regular suit between the same parties with respect to the same matter. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the applicability of the principle of res judicata to writ petitions and regular suits.