1980 (9) TMI 291 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Res Judicata Doctrine, Dismisses Appeal; Emphasizes Finality of Judgments

Abdul Salam Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.

The court dismissed the appeal based on the doctrine of res judicata, holding that a judgment inter partes from a previous suit operates as res judicata ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether a person is entitled to a hearing before an amount is certified as due and recoverable as arrears of land revenue.2. Whether a judgment inter partes given by a competent court in a previous suit or writ petition will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit or writ petition between the same parties where the decision in the earlier suit or writ petition was founded on a view contrary to that expressed by the Supreme Court in a different case.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Entitlement to Hearing Before Certification of Due AmountThe first issue, whether a person is entitled to a hearing before an amount is certified as due and recoverable as arrears of land revenue, was raised by the appellant. The appellant argued that the order of recovery was vitiated as no hearing had been granted before certifying the amount as due. This argument was based on the settled principles of law that even an administrative order involving civil consequences must be made after notice to the affected person and after affording them a reasonable opportunity to be heard. However, this issue was not ultimately decided in the judgment as the court focused on the second issue.Issue 2: Res Judicata and Previous JudgmentsThe second issue was whether a judgment inter partes given by a competent court in a previous suit or writ petition will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit or writ petition between the same parties, especially when the earlier decision was contrary to a subsequent Supreme Court ruling.The court first noted that in the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant, the precise question of entitlement to a hearing before the amount was certified was raised and decided against the appellant. The State argued that this decision should operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit, barring the appellant from re-litigating the same issue.The appellant countered that the earlier decision should not operate as res judicata because it was contrary to subsequent Supreme Court rulings which held that even administrative orders involving civil consequences require a hearing. The appellant's counsel argued that the earlier decision, being based on an erroneous view of law, should not be considered a valid judgment for res judicata purposes.The court reviewed various precedents, including:- Mohan Lal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee (AIR 1953 SC 65): The Supreme Court held that even an erroneous decision on a question of law operates as res judicata between the parties.- Perumal Nadar v. Ponnu Swami Nadar (AIR 1971 SC 2352): The court reiterated that the correctness of an earlier judgment is irrelevant for res judicata purposes.- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mulamchand: It was established that a decision on a question of law, even if later found erroneous, operates as res judicata if it has attained finality.The court concluded that the principle of res judicata applies irrespective of whether the earlier judgment was erroneous. The correctness of the earlier judgment is irrelevant as long as it has not been reviewed or reversed by a higher court. The court emphasized the importance of the finality of judgments and held that the subsequent declaration of law by the Supreme Court does not affect the operation of an earlier decision as res judicata.Therefore, the court answered the second question in the affirmative, holding that the subsequent suit filed by the appellant was barred by the principles of res judicata. The judgment under appeal was found to be correctly decided, and the appeal was dismissed.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata, and the court did not address the first issue regarding the entitlement to a hearing before certifying an amount as due. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.