LexAMARENDRA KOMALAM AND ANR. versus USHA SINHA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B ·C AMARENDRA KOMALAM AND ANR. v. USHA SINHA AND ANR. APRIL 7, 2005 [ASHOK BHAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section //-Res judicata.,..-Respondent giving an undertaking in the Court that she would not raise the issue of forgery-High Court disposing of the matter accordingly-Respondent in fresh suit raising same issue in respect of same subject matter against the same party-Held: Such an act on the part of respondent was barred by principles of res judicata, waiver and estoppel-Doctrines-'-Doctrine of res judicata. The question which has arisen for consideration in the present appeal D was whether the issue of interpolation in the agreement dated 2.9.1978 which stands settled between the same parties by the orders of the High Court and affirmed by this Court in regarel to the same subject matter can be allowed to be raised in another proceedings between the very same parties in the same Court. E Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The High Court has miserably fai~ed to appreciate that the undertaking of first respondent in a Civil Revision that she will not raise the issue of interpolation is binding on her and as such she was barred by the principles of res judicata, waiver and estoppel to raise the same issue F again between the very same parties in relation to the same subject matter. ( 336-B) 2.1. It is well settled that once an issue of fact has been judicially determined finally between the parties by a Court of competent jurisdiction and the same issue comes directly in question in subsequent G proceedings between the same parties then the persons cannot be allowed to raise the sa.me question which already stands determined earlier by the competentCourt. (337.:.q 2.2. The Agreement d~ted 02:09.1978 is an admitted document. Respondent No. 1 had sought to raise the issue of its forgery in earlier I-I 326 J ... - AMARENDRA KOMALAM v. USHA SINHA [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 327 proceedings, but finally undertook not to do so. This was recorded by the A High Court and the Civil Revision filed by respondent No.I was disposed of accordingly. Later respondent No. I sought to resile from her stand and filed an application for review before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The said order was challenged in SLP, which was dismissed. In that view of the matter, the question of interpolation in the renewal :B clause of the said deed has been finally decided and the same issue has been raised in the present suit when in both the suits the parties are the same and the basic claim of both the parties are same, as in eviction suit, the plaintiff is claiming eviction by termination of lease and denying the renewal clause whereas in the specific performance suit, the appellants are claiming the renewal of the lease on the basis of the said renewal clause. G Hence in both the suits, the main issue is substantially and materially one and the same, and both the cases are being tried simultaneously. This apart, the judgment of the High Court and of this Court is a judgment in personam which is binding upon both the parties. [336-H; 337-A, D-E) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2466 of2005. D From the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.2003 of the Patna High Court in C.R. No. 1178 of 2003. Raju Ramachandran, Rudreshwar Singh, Shishir Pinaki and Sanjay Jain with him for the Appellents. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. The main issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether an F issue, already settled in a suit between the same parties in respect of certain subject matter, can be allowed to be raised again between the very same parties in regard to the same subject matter, but in a different suit. The issue involved in the earlier proceedings was whether respondent No. I could raise the issue that there was interpolation in the clause relating G ' to renewal of lease deed in the agreement between the parties dated 02.09.1978. The High Court held that the said respondent could not raise that issue as she had expressly given it up. This was affirmed by this Court when the respondent challenged the order of the High Court before this Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 16513 of 2001 dated 13.09.2002. Now respondent No. I seeks to re-agitate H 328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R. A the very same issue in another suit between the same parties. According to the app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.