C.P.C, 1908 – Parties to the suit decided on merit and attained finality are bound by the terms of the decree – In representative suit, third party having complete knowledge of the previous litigation has no locus standi to file another suit on same subject matter:
Held: Neither the plaintiffs in the present suit nor the Government High School, were made parties to the earlier suit filed by the appellant which was solely between the appellant and the State, only for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property – The decree granted in O.S.No.80 of 1978 in favour of the appellant was challenged by the State before the appellate courts, but ended in dismissal – As the previous suit was decided on merits and has attained finality, Respondent No.2/State is bound by the terms of the decree – As Plaintiffs in the present suit were not parties to the previous suit and they made no attempt to implead themselves therein, having complete knowledge of the earlier round of litigations between the appellant and the State, they have no locus standi to file the present suit, especially in a representative capacity, wherein they are attempting to obtain reliefs for respondent No.2/State, which itself is barred from encroaching the suit property – Therefore, we are of the opinion that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. [Para 17] C.P.C, 1908 – When a party to the suit did not claim any right, interest, or title over suit property and did not adduce any concrete evidence to show the actual possession, it cannot be permitted to raise the same in subsequent suit filed by the third party in representative capacity:
Held: It is evident that the Respondent No.2/State did not claim any right, interest or title over the suit property and they did not adduce any concrete evidence to show that the suit property was in actual possession of the Government in the earlier round of litigations in O.S. No.80/1978 – They cannot now be permitted to raise the same in the subsequent suit filed by the third parties, that too, in a representative capacity – However, the trial Court erroneously entertained the suit and partly decreed the same in favour of the plaintiffs – Though the said decree was set aside by the First Appellate Court, the High Court decreed the suit as prayed for, by the judgment and order impugned in this appeal – The suit from which the present appeal arises, is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed – Hence, we need not go into the other contentions raised by the parties. [Para 18]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Himanshu Rai, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.