Constructive res judicata bars a second writ challenge to the same assessment order on grounds that could have been raised earlier.

Constructive res judicata applies to writ proceedings under Article 226 where the same assessment order is challenged again between the same parties on grounds that could have been raised earlier. The Court held that the doctrine is grounded in public policy and finality of judgments, and that its application is not excluded merely because the later challenge is framed as a constitutional writ. A successive petition attacking the same order for the same period would permit repeated litigation and undermine the binding effect of the earlier decision. The second writ petition was therefore barred and the challenge was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the principle of constructive res judicata bars a second writ petition under Article 226 challenging the same assessment order on grounds that could have been raised earlier.

Analysis: The Court held that although constitutional rights deserve vigilant protection in writ jurisdiction, the doctrine of res judicata rests on public policy, including finality of judicial decisions and the need to prevent repeated litigation on the same matter. Constructive res judicata, though a rule of the Code of Civil Procedure, is founded on the same policy considerations and cannot be ignored merely because proceedings are under Article 226. The Court distinguished cases involving different assessment years, where the cause of action may differ, from a case like the present one where the same assessment order for the same period was attacked again after an earlier challenge had failed. Allowing successive petitions on new grounds would permit endless litigation and undermine the binding effect of the Court's earlier between the parties.

Conclusion: The second writ petition was barred by constructive res judicata and the challenge to the assessment order was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Constructive res judicata applies to writ petitions under Article 226 where the same order between the same parties is sought to be challenged again on grounds that were or could have been raised earlier, because finality of judgments and public policy forbid repeated litigation of the same matter.

---