Constructive res judicata barred revival of a Section 57 divorce objection in a later proceeding.

An objection based on Section 57 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 could not be revived in a later election proceeding because it had already been raised, considered and effectively rejected in an earlier appeal. The Court treated the earlier refusal to entertain the plea as final, noting that the point had not been pleaded or pressed before the High Court, no issue had been framed, and it had not been pursued through cross-examination or before the trial court. On those facts, the objection was one that ought to have been taken earlier and was barred by constructive res judicata.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could, in the later election proceeding, re-agitate the objection based on Section 57 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, and whether that objection was barred by constructive res judicata.

Analysis: The earlier appeal had already dealt with the same proposed objection. The Court had refused to entertain it because it had not been pleaded or pressed before the High Court, no issue had been framed on it, and the matter had not been pursued in cross-examination or before the trial court. On those facts, the objection was one that could and ought to have been raised earlier. The Court treated its earlier refusal to allow the point as a final rejection of that plea and held that it could not be revived in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties.

Conclusion: The objection under Section 57 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 was barred and could not be re-agitated; the appeal therefore failed.

---