LexALKA GUPTA versus NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2010] 11 S.C.R. 756 ALKA GUPTA v. NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA (Civil Appeal No. 8321 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: c 0. 2, r. 2 - HELD: A suit cannot be dismissed as barred by 0. 2 r.2 in the absence of plea by defendant to that effect and in the absence of an issue thereon - Besides, in the instant case, cause of action for the second suit being completely different from the cause of action for the first suit, 0 the bar under 0. 2, r. 2 was not attracted. s.11, Explanations Ill and IV- Res-judicata - Principles explained - Constructive res judicata - HELD: Plea of res judicata must be clearly established, more particularly, where the bar is sought on the basis of constructive res-judicata - E In the instant case, High Court has not stated as to what was the ground of attack that the plaintiff ought to have raised but failed to raise in the first suit - The second suit is not barred by constructive res judicata. F s.11 and 0.2, r.2 - Concepts of and difference between - Explained. 0. 15, r.3 - Suit - Dismissal of - HELD: A suit cannot be dismissed without trial merely because the court feels G dissatisfied with the conduct of the plaintiff - In the instant case, High Court recorded factual findings on inference from plaintiff's conduct and branded her as an unscrupulous person who abused process of court, without there being a trial and without affording an opportunity to her to explain her conduct H 756 ALKA GUPTA v. NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA 757 - Such a procedure is opposed to all principles of natural A justice embodied in CPC - At all events, alleged weakness of plaintiff's case or her unscrupulousness are not grounds for dismissal of suit without trial - There is also no basis for levying costs of Rs.50,0001- It has been repeatedly stated that in dealing with civil suits, courts will have to follow the B provisions of CPC - Principles of natural justice - Costs - Practice and Procedure. The plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondent, as per the deed dated 5.4.2000, were the only partners o.f c a coaching.institute under the name and style of "Takshila Institute" in premises at Paschim Vihar. On 29.6.2004, the appellant executed an agreement to sell her undivided half share in a premises at Rohini - Sector 8 and 50% share of Mis Takshila Institute which was run in the 0 premises at Rohini - Sector 8, with all rights, titles, interest, goodwill etc. to the respondent, for a total consideration of Rs.21,50,000/- and received Rs.7,50,000/ - as advance. The appellant filed a suit (Suit No. 16/2006) against the respondent in the District Court, Delhi for E recovery of Rs.12 lakhs, alleging that in pursuance of the agreement dated 29.6.2004 she had executed a sale deed in regard to the immovable p· lperty for Rs. 2 lakhs and the respondent promised to pay the balance of Rs. 12 lakhs in regard to other rights and interest agreed to be sold under the agreement. That suit was decreed. F Thereafter, the appellant filed another suit (O.S. No. 302/2007) against the respondent, in the Delhi High Court, for rendition of accounts for the period 5.4.2000 to 31.7.2000 in regard to the partnership firm of "Takshila G Institute" at Paschim Vihar, and her share of profit in that business, pleading that the said partnership was at will and it was dissolved on 31.7.2004 when the respondent had filed a suit for injunction against the appellant and others. H 758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 11 S.C.R. A The respondent resisted the suit on the grounds, inter alia, that the suit was barred by res judicate, and was liable to be dismissed for material suppression of facts. It was contended that by virtue of agreement of sale dated 29.6.2004, the partnership under the deed dated B 5.4.2000 was dissolved a.nd the claims of the appellant . were settled. Issues were framed treating the first issue of res judicata as the preliminary issue. The trial bench (single Judge of the High Court) held that the suit was liable to. be dismissed summarily and acc.ordingly C dismissed the suit with cost of Rs.50,000/-, inter alia, holding that (i) the suit was barred by 0.2, r.2 CPC, (ii) the suit was barred by constructive res judicata and (iii) the appellant was an unscrupulous person, she had abused the process of court by filing the suit based on D falsehoods. The appellate bench of the High
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.