TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissed Appeal Due to Delay & Res Judicata; Emphasized Laches and Discretionary Relief</h1> <h3>Radha Krishna and Ors. Versus The State of Rajasthan and Ors.</h3> The appeal challenging a learned single Judge's order was dismissed as the writ petition was found to be barred by the rule of constructive res judicata ... - Issues:1. Whether the writ petition filed by the appellants is barred by the rule of constructive res judicata and inordinate delay.Analysis:The judgment revolves around a special appeal challenging the order of a learned single Judge. The primary issue was whether the writ petition filed by the appellants was barred by the rule of constructive res judicata and inordinate delay. The appellants had previously filed a writ petition on the same facts, seeking to quash notifications for land acquisition. The earlier petition was withdrawn by the appellants before a decision on merits. The current writ petition was filed after a significant delay of 1 1/2 years, raising similar grounds but adding a new aspect based on a Supreme Court decision. The Court examined the permission granted to withdraw the earlier petition and whether it allowed for filing a fresh petition. The Court emphasized that withdrawal without permission precludes instituting a fresh suit. The judgment highlighted the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure to Article 226 proceedings and the discretionary nature of relief under Article 226. The Court ultimately held that the present writ petition was barred by Rule 382 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, which prohibits a second application on the same facts. The judgment also emphasized the principle of laches, citing unreasonable delay as a reason for dismissing the petition. The Court concluded that the appeal failed and was dismissed with costs.This detailed analysis delves into the legal intricacies surrounding the issues of constructive res judicata, inordinate delay, the withdrawal of the earlier petition, the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure to Article 226 proceedings, and the principle of laches. The judgment's comprehensive examination provides clarity on the reasons behind dismissing the appeal and upholding the decision of the learned single Judge.
TaxTMI 
