2004 (2) TMI 738 - HC - Indian Laws

Trial Court's Order on Res Judicata Appealable as Decree under Section 2(2) of CPC

The Court found the Trial Court's order, determining the suit as barred by res judicata, to be appealable as it constituted a decree under Section 2(2) of ... Res judicata - appealability of an order dismissing suit under Section 9 CPC as a decree - definition of decree under Section 2(2) CPC - maintainability of petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in presence of an efficacious alternative remedyRes judicata - appealability of an order dismissing suit under Section 9 CPC as a decree - definition of decree under Section 2(2) CPC - maintainability of petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in presence of an efficacious alternative remedy - Whether the order of the Trial Court dismissing the suit under Section 9 CPC on the ground of res judicata is a decree appealable to the District Court and whether the petition under Article 227 is maintainable in view of the alternative remedy of appeal. - HELD THAT: - The Trial Court found that the controversy between the parties had already been finally decided by the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings and, on that basis, dismissed the present suit as barred by res judicata. An order which conclusively adjudicates the rights of parties with regard to the matter in controversy falls within the ambit of a decree as contemplated by the definition in Section 2(2) CPC. The decision in Ratan Singh relied upon by the petitioner concerned denial of condonation of delay and did not involve adjudication of substantive rights; it is therefore distinguishable. Since the impugned order determines the substantive rights of the parties on the ground of res judicata, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal to the District Court. In these circumstances a petition under Article 227 is not the appropriate remedy to challenge such an order and cannot be entertained where a statutory appeal lies. The petitioner was accordingly dismissed from the petition but granted liberty to prefer an appeal within 30 days; the Appellate Court was directed to entertain and decide any such appeal on merits without going into limitation if filed within the granted period.The order dismissing the petition is rejected; the Trial Court's order is a decree appealable to the District Court and the petitioner must pursue the remedy of appeal (liberty granted to file appeal within 30 days; appellate court to decide without considering limitation if appeal filed within that period).Final Conclusion: The High Court declined to entertain the Article 227 petition, holding that the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit on the ground of res judicata amounted to a decree appealable to the District Court; petition dismissed with liberty to file appeal within 30 days and direction to the Appellate Court to decide such appeal without raising limitation if filed within the prescribed time. Issues:1. Appealability of the Trial Court's order under Section 9 of CPC on the ground of res judicata.2. Applicability of the judgment in Ratan Singh v. Vijaysingh AIR 2001 SC 279.3. Determination of rights of parties and the nature of the Trial Court's order.Analysis:1. Appealability of the Trial Court's order under Section 9 of CPC on the ground of res judicata:The petitioner challenged the Trial Court's order claiming it was not appealable or revisable. The Court found that the order determining the suit as barred by res judicata falls within the definition of a decree under Section 2(2) of CPC. Referring to the judgment in Ratan Singh v. Vijaysingh AIR 2001 SC 279, the Court clarified that in cases where rights of parties are conclusively determined, the order constitutes a decree and is appealable. As the Trial Court had conclusively decided the matter based on the plea of res judicata, the petitioner was directed to file an appeal before the District Court within 30 days.2. Applicability of the judgment in Ratan Singh v. Vijaysingh AIR 2001 SC 279:The judgment in Ratan Singh v. Vijaysingh AIR 2001 SC 279 was cited by the petitioner to argue for the petition's maintainability. However, the Court differentiated the facts of that case, where the rejection of an application for condonation of delay did not amount to a decree as no adjudication of rights had occurred. In contrast, in the present case, the Trial Court had conclusively determined the rights of the parties based on the plea of res judicata, making the order appealable as a decree.3. Determination of rights of parties and the nature of the Trial Court's order:The Court analyzed the history of the case, where previous litigation involving the same parties had been adjudicated up to the Apex Court. The petitioner claimed rights through predecessors whose matter had already been decided. The Trial Court found the present suit barred by res judicata, as the matter in controversy had been conclusively determined previously. Consequently, the Trial Court's order was considered a decree and appealable before the District Court. The petitioner was granted 30 days to file an appeal, emphasizing the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy through the appeal process.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner the opportunity to file an appeal within the specified timeframe. The detailed analysis highlighted the appealability of the Trial Court's order, the distinction in the applicability of judgments, and the conclusive determination of rights leading to the order being considered a decree under the CPC.