Res judicata and per incuriam order: prior revisional decision could not bar fresh execution where debt relief provisions were ignored.

A revisional order passed without considering the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980 and the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief (Amendment) Act, 1981 could not operate as res judicata. The decree for arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation fell within an excluded category under the principal Act, and the amended definition of debtor and removal-of-doubts provision confirmed that the judgment-debtor was not entitled to statutory relief on the facts found. An order made in ignorance of controlling statutory provisions, and contrary to them, is per incuriam and non-binding between the parties. The executing court's refusal to entertain the fresh execution petition was therefore unsustainable, and the decree-holder was entitled to have execution restored and proceeded with according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier revisional order, passed without noticing the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980 and the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief (Amendment) Act, 1981, could operate as res judicata or otherwise bind the parties so as to bar a fresh execution petition.

Analysis: The decree related to arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation, a category expressly excluded from the benefit of the principal Act. Even apart from that exclusion, the amended definition of debtor and the removal of doubts provision in the Amendment Act showed that the judgment-debtor was not entitled to the statutory benefit on the facts found. A prior decision rendered in ignorance of the controlling statutory provisions, and contrary to them, cannot be treated as a binding adjudication between the parties. The doctrine of res judicata does not protect an order that is per incuriam on a pure question of statutory effect, and the Court is bound to correct its own error when it is brought to notice.

Conclusion: The earlier revisional order did not bar the decree-holder from proceeding with execution, and the executing court's refusal to entertain the execution petition was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The decree-holder was entitled to have the execution petition restored and proceeded with in accordance with law, while the connected procedural dismissal call did not survive for separate adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: An order rendered in ignorance of the governing statutory provisions, and contrary to them, is non-binding and cannot be allowed to operate as res judicata between the same parties.

---