Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.11, Or.23 r.1 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.14 – Revival of cause of action – Res judicata – Limitation – Non-joinder of necessary parties – Plaintiff, entered into an agreement to sell the property to first defendant – Execution of Power of Attorney-PoA in favour of second defendant, secretary of the first defendant – PoA cancelled before the execution of the sale deed in favour of the first defendant – Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction from alienating or disposing off the plot against second defendant – Suit dismissed by the trial court and first appellate court – High Court allowed the second appeal– Appeal before this Court, wherein matter remanded to the High Court – On remand, the High Court agreed with the concurrent findings, dismissed the Second Appeal and granted liberty to file a comprehensive suit for the reliefs sought – Plaintiff then filed a fresh suit for declaration of two sale deeds – Trial Court decreed the suit – In appeal, the High Court set aside the decree and suit was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata, limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties – Interference with:
Held: Not called for – Liberty granted by the High Court in the second appeal was waste of time and effort; which cannot give a fresh lease of life to either the cause of action; to save limitation or the grounds on which the declaration and consequential relief has been prayed for in the present suit; which grounds were already adjudicated in the earlier suit and found against the plaintiff by three courts – Entire sub-stratum of the plaintiff’s case is built upon the alleged coercion and misrepresentation in execution of the PoA and subsequent cancellation effected, which ground does not survive having been rejected concurrently by three courts in the earlier proceeding, clearly barring the present suit on the ground of resjudicata – Issue now agitated was substantially in issue in the earlier suit and decided against the plaintiff, bringing in the rigor of s.11 – Findings in the impugned judgment regarding limitation and resjudicata agreed with – High Court’s observation that the suit is barred for reason of non-joinder of necessary parties, is agreed with. [Paras 9-11]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. 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.