MAMLESHWAR PRASAD & ANR versus KANAHAIYA LAL (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS.

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 834 · Decided: 04-03-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

834 
MAMLESHWAR PRASAD & ANR 
~. 
KANAHAIYA LAL (DEAD) THROUGH L.Rs. 
March 4, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, K. K. MATHE"Y AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] 
Prarctice a11d Procedure-Judgment given at the instance of the party ill one 
appeal on the ha.n's it wdu/d dispose of connected appeals on Identical ftu.13 
and law-Whether conMcted appeals can be argued on the bosis of earlier 
j11dgm'e11t beinR i11c11riam. 
The question that arose in the three appeals and a connected appeal relalli:d 
to the jurisdiction of Civil courts under the Delhi Land. Reforms Act to adjud.i-
cat•e on certain questions. The four mi1tters were disposed of by a common judg. 
ment by the High Court. Special leave having been granted, there were four 
appeals to this Court. The appellants then moved this Court with a view to 
·save money etc., that one of the four appeals may be got ready and directed to 
be posted as the matter for decision is common to all. Accordingly, one of 
the appeals was he.ard and · decided against the appellants. It was, howewr, 
contended, as regards the other three appeals, that the earlier adjudication was 
a judgment per incuriam and, therefore, was not binding either on the appella:nts 
or the Court. 
~ejecting the 1:ontention, 
· HELD : (I) As a result of an application at an earlier stage the appellants 
got benefits like l'(:duced security deposit and consolidation for printing a:11d 
hearing on their representation to the Court that the points arising in all the 
appeals were common· and the disposal of one would govern the rest. A 
litigant cnnnot play fast and lose with the Court. 
[836F-HJ 
Ex Parle Pratt (52) Q.B. 334, referred to. 
(2) Ordinarily a decision once rendered must later bind like cases that is, 
a prior decision of the Court on identical facts and law binds the court on the 
same points in a fater case. In the present case the earlier decision was ad· 
mittedly rendered on facts and Jaw, indistinguishably identical with those in the 
other three appeals. [837B, C-D) 
(3) In cxc l'ptional and rare instances, where by obvious inadvertence or 
oversight a judgment failis to notice a plain statutory provision or obligato·rY 
authori' y runnin11 counter to the reasoning and the result reached, it may not 
havo the sway of a binding precedent. But in the present case, the point abciut 
the Civil Court's power to go into a land reform litigation had been considered 
and adversely decided, so much so, it is not correct for the appellants to say 
that the matter had, by grave lnadventence been missed. to give rise to any 
qt~~stion of a judgment given per incuriam. 
[835E; 837B-C] 
Cassel & Cd. Ltd. v. Broome [1972] 1 All. E.R. 301=[1972] 2 W.L.R. 645 
and The English Le1?al System by R. J. Walker & M. G. Walker, III [dn .. 
Butterwm·ths, 1972, referred to. 
C!vrL APPELLATE ~URISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 
2167 to 
2169 of 1968. 
-
From the Judgment and Order dated 16th August, 1966 of the 
Delhi High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 63-D, 65-D & 66-D of 1965. 
N. S. Bindra, S. S. Dalal and D. D. Sharma, for the appellants. 
V. D. Mahajan, for respondents (In C.As. 2168-69). 
Sarjoo Prasad, Uma Mehta, R. K. Mehta and M. L. lain:, for the 
respondent (inC.A. No. 2167/68). 
· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
M. PRASAD v. K. LAL (Krishna, Iyer, J.) 
835 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J. A common judgment of the Division Bench of 
the Delhi Hign Court disposed of four appeals, the points covered by 
all being admittedly identical. Special leave was granted by this Court 
and thus four appeals came into existence here. However, the appel· 
!ants before us moved this Court that with a view to save money and 
energy, one of the four may be directed to be got ready and disposed of 
and the others may, thereafter, follow the fate of the first. 
On this 
basis C.A. 2556 of 1966 was heard at length and decided adversely to 
the present appellants. Shri Bindra, learned counsel for the appellants, 
submits that the earlier adjudication by this Court amounted to a judg-
ment per incuriam and did not bind him or the Court. He was thus 
free to argue on the merits, especially the holding on the civil court's 
jurisdiction, and . the matter was at large. 
We have to coli.sider this 
contention on its merits. 
Certain background facts bearing on the narrow question above 
posed serve to appreciate the point made. The present batch of ap-
peals, as already stated, emanated from a judgment covering them al
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.