The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that res judicata cannot be invoked to bar a decree holder from seeking a local commission under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC when the earlier application was filed by a different party and pertains to a different subject matter. This ruling reinforces procedural fairness in execution proceedings and prevents misuse of res judicata to obstruct legitimate enforcement of decrees.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a 1981 eviction suit filed by the respondents under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961, which was decreed on 30.03.1990. The decree remained unexecuted for over 36 years. The petitioner, Arun Kumar Sharma, intervened in the execution proceedings claiming title to the property through a will, asserting rights over land beyond the original "Tapra" subject to the decree.
Procedural History
- 1990: Eviction decree passed in favor of respondents
- 2019: Petitioner filed application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC claiming title via will; application rejected on 15.04.2019 as an attempt to collect evidence
- 2019: Respondents filed a subsequent application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of a local commission to inspect the original "Tapra" property
- 15.07.2019: Executing Court allowed the respondents’ application
- 2019: Petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the 15.07.2019 order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order permitting a local commission, arguing it violated the principle of res judicata due to the earlier rejection of his similar application.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether res judicata bars a decree holder from filing an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for a local commission after an earlier application by a different party on a different issue has been rejected.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the respondents’ application was barred by res judicata under Section 11 CPC, as it raised substantially the same issue - title and possession over the property - already adjudicated when his application was rejected. He argued that the executing court had already determined that claims based on the will were not admissible in execution, and the respondents’ application was a disguised attempt to re-litigate the same.
For the Respondent
The respondents countered that their application was distinct in both party and scope. They emphasized that their request was limited to inspecting the original "Tapra" property defined in the 1990 decree, not to challenge the petitioner’s will or assert title. They relied on the settled principle that res judicata applies only between the same parties and on the same cause of action.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature and scope of both applications. It held that res judicata cannot operate where the parties and the subject matter differ. The petitioner’s application was filed to assert an independent title claim based on a will, while the respondents’ application sought only a factual inspection of the property as defined in the decree. The Court observed that the executing court’s role is to enforce the decree as it stands, not to adjudicate new title claims.
"The parties filing application being different and the scope of the application being different, the executing court was at liberty to consider the application filed by the decree holder on merits."
The Court further clarified that rejection of an application on grounds of being an attempt to collect evidence does not constitute a decision on the merits of a claim, and thus cannot create a bar under Section 11 CPC. The respondents’ application was procedural, aimed at facilitating accurate execution, and fell squarely within the court’s inherent power under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that res judicata does not apply when different parties seek different reliefs in execution proceedings, and that a decree holder may apply for a local commission even after a prior application by an objector has been rejected, provided the scope and purpose are distinct.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Applications Under Order 26 Rule 9 Are Procedural, Not Adjudicatory
- Practitioners must distinguish between applications seeking factual inspection and those asserting substantive title claims
- Rejection of an objector’s application on procedural grounds does not preclude a decree holder from seeking a local commission
- Courts must not conflate procedural tools with adjudication of rights
Res Judicata Requires Identity of Parties and Cause of Action
- Section 11 CPC requires strict identity of parties, subject matter, and relief sought
- This judgment reaffirms that res judicata cannot be stretched to cover applications filed by different parties on different issues
- Lawyers must carefully plead the distinct nature of applications to avoid premature dismissal
Execution Courts Must Not Be Prevented From Facilitating Decree Enforcement
- The purpose of Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is to assist execution, not to litigate title
- Delay in execution does not extinguish the right to seek factual clarification
- Courts should not allow objectors to use procedural rejections as shields against legitimate enforcement
