#res judicata

The Madras High Court invoked Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction to strike off a civil suit where the plaintiff suppressed prior Supreme Court eviction decrees and claimed title through a tenant who fabricated settlement and sale deeds in breach of court undertakings. The ruling affirms that supervisory power extends to aborting proceedings founded on fraud and deliberate concealment of adverse judicial orders.

The Calcutta HC held that res judicata does not bar a later Section 65B affidavit for distinct documents, allowing supplementary electronic evidence. This aids litigants in insurance claims by allowing extra digital records without procedural bar.

A magistrate’s denial of a Section 156(3) application does not amount to a conclusive decision, so it cannot invoke res judicata to block FIR registration. This ensures police can proceed with investigations even after an initial refusal, affecting complainants and law-enforcement agencies alike.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court’s order barring oral testimony on internal documents, stressing that earlier exclusions are binding under res judicata and imposing a Rs 10 lakh cost on Reliance. The ruling underscores finality of evidentiary rulings in commercial contract disputes.

The Supreme Court ruled that a single appeal filed under Section 96 of the CPC can be maintained to contest a common judgment dismissing two separate suits filed by the same plaintiff. This eliminates the need for separate appeals, reducing litigation time and cost for litigants. The holding applies to all civil parties seeking to appeal consolidated judgments.

A Gujarat High Court ruled that under Section 96 of the CPC a first appeal may be filed against only a single decree, barring a combined challenge to both the suit decree and the counter-claim decree. Litigants must file separate appeals for each decree, reinforcing procedural compliance in civil appeals.

Supreme Court rules that even erroneous fact-based orders bind parties under res judicata unless jurisdictional defects exist. Clarifies impleadment of transferees pendente lite under CPC Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10, impacting property dispute litigants.

Allahabad HC rules that rejection of a pleading amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not warrant supervisory jurisdiction interference if the legal grounds (e.g., res judicata) are already part of the pleadings. The court emphasizes that no new factual or legal issue arises, preventing unnecessary delays in adjudication.

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that once a court conclusively settles a title dispute, administrative authorities cannot prohibit property registration under Section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration Act. The judgment directs removal of the petitioner’s property from the prohibited list, reinforcing that res judicata prevails over administrative overreach in property registration matters.

Karnataka High Court rules that the pendency of an earlier suit does not automatically bar a subsequent suit if the reliefs sought are distinct and arise from separate causes of action. The court emphasized that res judicata principles must not stifle legitimate claims under Section 151 CPC, reinforcing judicial flexibility in civil procedure.

Karnataka High Court sets a precedent by dismissing a landowner's appeal under Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act after he accepted compensation, delayed filing for nine years, and failed to disclose a prior Lok Adalat settlement. The ruling reinforces that courts will not entertain appeals constituting abuse of process, protecting finality in land acquisition disputes.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that withdrawing a writ petition under Article 226 without seeking leave to file a fresh petition precludes subsequent petitions on the same cause of action. This decision reinforces res judicata principles and discourages forum-shopping, impacting litigants seeking multiple remedies for identical disputes.

The Karnataka High Court permits courts to decide res judicata as a preliminary issue without oral evidence when pleadings conclusively establish identity of parties, subject matter, and prior adjudication. This streamlines decade-old partition suits by preventing redundant litigation, benefiting parties facing prolonged property disputes and reinforcing judicial efficiency under civil procedure.

Karnataka High Court clarifies that land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 lapses only if compensation remains unpaid AND lawful possession is not taken. Mere treasury deposit does not suffice, and once possession is taken, land vests absolutely in the State under Section 16, barring divesting even if earlier proceedings lapse. This ruling impacts landowners and authorities in ongoing acquisition disputes.

Orissa High Court reinforces that parties must first exhaust appeals under Sections 12 and 36 of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act before invoking revisional power under Section 37. The ruling quashes a Commissioner’s order granting land share, emphasizing procedural compliance in consolidation disputes.