SMT. ARIFA & ORS. versus ABHIMAN APARTMENT COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1355 · Decided: 14-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VINOD CHANDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1355 : 2025 INSC 875
Smt. Arifa & Ors. 
v. 
Abhiman Apartment Cooperative Housing Society 
Ltd. & Ors.
(Special Leave Petition (C) 18180 of 2025)
14 July 2025
[K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the liberty granted to file a fresh suit by the 
High Court would enable the party to revive a cause of action and 
save limitation, so as to enable raking up all grounds earlier raised 
and rejected by concurrent findings of the trial court and the first 
appellate court, affirmed by the High Court in Second Appeal.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.11, Or.23 r.1 – Limitation 
Act, 1963 – s.14 – Revival of cause of action – Res judicata – 
Limitation – Non-joinder of necessary parties – Plaintiff, 
entered into an agreement to sell the property to first 
defendant – Execution of Power of Attorney-PoA in favour 
of second defendant, secretary of the first defendant – PoA 
cancelled before the execution of the sale deed in favour 
of the first defendant – Plaintiff filed suit for permanent 
injunction from alienating or disposing off the plot against 
second defendant – Suit dismissed by the trial court and 
first appellate court – High Court allowed the second 
appeal– Appeal before this Court, wherein matter remanded 
to the High Court – On remand, the High Court agreed with 
the concurrent findings, dismissed the Second Appeal and 
granted liberty to file a comprehensive suit for the reliefs 
sought – Plaintiff then filed a fresh suit for declaration of 
two sale deeds – Trial Court decreed the suit – In appeal, 
the High Court set aside the decree and suit was dismissed 
on the grounds of res judicata, limitation and non-joinder of 
necessary parties – Interference with:
1356
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: Not called for – Liberty granted by the High Court in the 
second appeal was waste of time and effort; which cannot give a 
fresh lease of life to either the cause of action; to save limitation or 
the grounds on which the declaration and consequential relief has 
been prayed for in the present suit; which grounds were already 
adjudicated in the earlier suit and found against the plaintiff by 
three courts – Entire sub-stratum of the plaintiff’s case is built 
upon the alleged coercion and misrepresentation in execution of 
the PoA and subsequent cancellation effected, which ground does 
not survive having been rejected concurrently by three courts in the 
earlier proceeding, clearly barring the present suit on the ground of 
resjudicata – Issue now agitated was substantially in issue in the 
earlier suit and decided against the plaintiff, bringing in the rigor 
of s.11 – Findings in the impugned judgment regarding limitation 
and resjudicata agreed with – High Court’s observation that the 
suit is barred for reason of non-joinder of necessary parties, is 
agreed with. [Paras 9-11]
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Limitation Act, 1963.
List of Keywords
Liberty to file fresh suit; Revive cause of action; Limitation; 
Resjudicata; Non-joinder of necessary parties; Cause of action; 
Cancellation of power of attorney; Execution of the sale deed; 
Suit for permanent injunction; Second appeal; Coercion and 
misrepresentation.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 18180 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2023 of the High Court 
of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in RFA No. 719 of 2015
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners:
Raghavendra Srivatsa, Sr. Adv., Prashant Gouder, D.L. Chidananda.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sharanagouda Patil, Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 
1357
Smt. Arifa & Ors. v.  
Abhiman Apartment Co operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
The question arising in the above case is as to whether the liberty 
granted to file a fresh suit by the High Court would enable the party 
to revive a cause of action and save limitation, so as to enable raking 
up all grounds earlier raised and rejected by concurrent findings 
of the trial court and the first appellate court, affirmed by the High 
Court in Second Appeal.
2.	
We heard Mr. Raghavendra Srivatsa, Senior Advocate appearing 
for the petitioners and Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Advocate appearing 
for respondent No.1.
3.	
The original plaintiff, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners 
herein admittedly entered into an agreement for sale 

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