S. RAMACHANDRA RAO versus S. NAGABHUSHANA RAO & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 19-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
451
S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
v.
S. NAGABHUSHANA RAO & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7691-7694 of 2022)
OCTOBER 19, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of res judicata – Application
of – Advocates Act, 1961 – s.32 – High Court held that it was not
permissible for a GPA holder to participate in the proceedings, wife
of the appellant (his GPA holder) was given liberty to act as an
advocate on behalf of her husband, the plaintiff, in these cases –
Correctness of – On appeal, held: Doctrine of res judicata is attracted
not only in separate subsequent proceedings but also at subsequent
stage of the same proceedings – A binding decision cannot lightly
be ignored and even an erroneous decision remains binding on the
parties to the same litigation and concerning the same issue, if
rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction – Such a binding
decision cannot be ignored even on the principle of per incuriam
because that principle applies to the precedents and not to the
doctrine of res judicata – In the present case, the previous orders
passed in these matters by the High Court on 20.04.2018 and
14.12.2018, as regards the issue of participation of the wife of the
appellant in these proceedings as a GPA holder of the appellant,
remain binding on the parties and cannot be ignored – The issue
concerning the capacity of the wife of the appellant to participate
in these proceedings as his GPA holder cannot be agitated over
again in these very proceedings, even if the earlier orders granting
such permission to her are suggested to be erroneous – The meaning,
purport and effect of the previous concluded orders of the High
Court dated 20.04.2018 and 14.12.2018 had been clear and
unambiguous that in these cases, wife of the appellant would be
entitled to appear only as the GPA holder and not as an advocate –
Also, the enabling provision of s.32 of the 1961 Act, whereby any
Court, authority or person may permit any non-advocate to appear
before it or him in any particular case is difficult to be read as
creating a corresponding bar in giving permission to a GPA holder
of a party to represent that party as such, if the said GPA holder,
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 451
451
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
during pendency of the proceedings in the Court, gets enrolled as
an advocate – In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case, where the only fortuitous event had been that wife of the
appellant, who was already acting as his General Power of Attorney
holder, later on took the degree in law and got herself enrolled as
an advocate, the High Court had, in the previous rounds of
proceedings, cautiously balanced the requirements of law,
particularly the requirements of CPC, the Civil Rules of Practice in
the State, and the 1961 Act as also the rules made under it by
specifically providing that wife of the appellant shall appear only
as his GPA holder and not as an advocate – Further, no such
question like that of jurisdiction or statutory prohibition arises from
the said orders dated 20.04.2018 and 14.12.2018 for which, the
issue concluded thereby could be reagitated at the subsequent stage
of these very proceedings by suggesting different interpretations –
Impugned common order dated 28.06.2019 is set aside; and the
orders passed by the Trial Court dated 07.02.2019 are restored –
Power of Attorney – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.11.
Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of res judicata – Object and
framework of – ‘res judicata pro veritate occipitur’ - ‘nemo debet bis
vexari pro una et eadem causa’ – Discussed.
Advocates Act, 1961 – s.32 – Power of Court to permit
appearances in particular cases – Held: Permission u/s.32 of the
Act of 1961, by its very nature, is to be granted on case-to-case
basis and could also be refused with reference to the given set of
facts and circumstances referable to a particular case and any
particular person.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
1.1 Section 11 CPC is not the foundation of the doctrine of
res judicata but is merely the statutory recognition thereof and,
hence, is not considered exhaustive of the general principles of
law. This doctrine, it is recognised, is conceived in larger public
interest and is founded on equity, justice and good conscience. It
hardly needs any over-emphasis that but for this doctrine of res
judicata, the rights of the persons would remain entangled in
endless confusion and the very foundation of maintain

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