Res judicata does not bar a later evacuee property challenge when a new statute creates a fresh cause of action.

A prior final order under the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 did not bar a later challenge to a court sale where the subsequent ordinance and successor evacuee property Act created a wider statutory right to seek setting aside of such sales. Because that right and corresponding cause of action arose only under the later legislation, the Custodian could not have obtained the same relief in the earlier proceeding. The Court therefore held that res judicata did not apply, and the sale was liable to be set aside under the later law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Custodian's application to set aside the court sale was barred by res judicata in view of the earlier final order, and whether the later evacuee property legislation conferred a fresh and independent basis to challenge the sale.

Analysis: The earlier order had been made under a different statutory regime, namely the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947, which applied a narrower date criterion. The later ordinance and the successor Act created a wider right in the Custodian to seek setting aside of sales of evacuee property made after the relevant statutory date. Since that right arose only after the later legislation came into force, the Custodian could not have obtained the same relief in the earlier proceeding. The existence of an earlier final order did not therefore bar the later application, because the later claim rested on a new statutory cause of action.

Conclusion: The application was not barred by res judicata, and the sale was liable to be set aside under the later evacuee property law; the decision was in favour of the Custodian.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later statute confers a new right and a fresh cause of action, a prior final order under an earlier and narrower statutory regime does not operate as res judicata against proceedings founded on the later law.

---