ABDUL RAHMAN versus PRASONY BAI AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 260 · Decided: 20-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ABDUL RAHMAN 
v. 
PRASONY BAI AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 20, 2002 
B 
[RUMA PAL AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908: 
Section I I-Principle of constructive res judicata-Applicability of-
C The issue which could and ought to have been ra.ised in a proceeding, but not 
raise.[/ would be barred by the principle of constructive res judicata, particularly 
when the validity or legality of the proceedings had not been questioned as 
a result whereof. the same attained finality. 
D 
Section 24-Withdrawal of pending suit from subordinate Court by High 
Cout;,t-Jurisdiction of High Court-Held, the Court has jurisdiction to 
withdraw and dispose of the same on its own motion without issuing any 
notice. 
Suit-Disposal of-Requirement to follow procedure for disposal-Held, 
E for the purpose of disposal of suit on admitted facts, particularly when it could 
be disposed of on preliminary issues, no particular procedure is required to 
be followed-Code of Civil Procedure Order XIV Rule I. 
Escheat proceedings were initiated in respect of the property in 
question declaring that he died intestate and the possession of the land 
F was taken from respondent No.I 'by the Patwari. Thereafter a part of the 
land was allotted in favour of the appellant who was tenant therein. 
Respondent N~.I questioned the allotment in favour of the appellant before 
the revenue authority who restored possession thereof of respondent No. I 
and cancelled the allotment to appellant. Board of Revenue in appeal 
maintained the order of cancellation of allotment. Writ Petition before 
G 
H 
High Court against order of revenue authority was dismissed. 
In mutation proceeding, Board of Revenue directed mutation of land 
in favour of Respondent No.I. Application for review against the order 
of mutation was dismissed. 
260 
ABDUL RAHMAN v. PRASONY BAI 
261 
Appellant filed a suit for declaring that respondent No. I was not A 
daughter of the original allottee; and that the plaintiff was in adverse 
possession of the land. The litigation in the suit, when reached High Court 
regarding preliminary issues, the Court having noticed that the previous 
litigation between the parties also related to the property in suit, withdrew 
the suit from the trial court and dismissed the same holding that the same 
was not maintainable as being covered by principles of res judicata. L.P.A. B 
against the order of the Single Judge was dismissed by Division Bench of 
High Court. 
Jn appeal to this Court appellant contended that High Court had 
no jurisdiction to withdraw the suit and dispose of civil revision application C 
in exercise of its power under Section 24 C.P.C.; that the procedure for 
determining the issues in the suit having not been followed by High Court, 
the impugned order was without jurisdiction; and that since revenue court 
had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question of status of respondent 
No. I vis-a-vis the original allottee, the principles of res judicata cannot be 
said to have any application. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. It may be true that normally High Court does not pass 
an order under Section 24 C.P.C. in a disposed of proceeding. However, 
D 
in terms of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, indisputably the E 
High Court had the requisite jurisdiction to withdraw any suit pending 
in any court subordinate to it and try or dispose of the same inter alia on 
its own motion, wherefor even no notice is required to be issued. 
(270-C-D( 
1.2. The records of the case clearly demonstrate that the appellant F 
did not raise any question as regards the lack of jurisdiction of the High 
Court to pass such an order in terms of Section 24 C.P.C. In fact, the 
appellant without any demur submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the 
High Court by taking part in the proceedings. High Court had the 
jurisdiction to withdraw the suit on its own file for its disposal. (271-D-F] G 
Khushro S. Gandhi and Ors. v. N.A. Guzder (dead) by l.Rs. and Ors., 
AIR (1970) SC 1468, distinguished. 
2. For the purpose of disposal of the suit on the admitted facts, 
particularly when the suit can be disposed of on preliminary issues, no 
particular procedure was required to be followed by the High Court. In H 
262 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A terms of Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Civil. Court 
can dispose of a suit on pre~iminary issu.es. It is neither in doubt nor in 
dispute that the issues of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.