The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the High Court of Jharkhand, holding that a plea of res judicata must be considered on its own merits at the initial stage rather than being postponed to be decided along with the main suit. The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra emphasized that such pleas must be adjudicated early to prevent the re-agitation of settled issues.
The appeal arose from a challenge to an order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in CMP No. 602 of 2024. The Appellant, Shahid Alam, was aggrieved by the High Court’s decision regarding a suit filed by Respondent No. 1, Arun Kumar Yadav. The Appellant had filed a petition to dismiss the suit on the ground of res judicata, arguing that the issues raised had already been settled in previous litigations. However, the High Court held that the plea of res judicata would not be decided immediately but “would be considered along with the main suit finally.”
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Contentions: Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the parties had already undergone “two rounds of litigation in the past,” in which they were involved either as plaintiff or defendant. It was argued that the same issue was being “re-agitated for the third time,” which is “clearly hit by the principle of res judicata.”
The counsel contended that permitting the suit to proceed would constitute an “abuse of the process of the Court and amount to harassment.” It was highlighted that the Appellant had succeeded in the previous rounds “right up to this Court.” The Appellant alleged that the current suit was a “subterfuge” where the “so called adopted son of one of the claimant” was raising the same plea.
Respondent’s Contentions: Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff argued that the suit challenged the “very capacity of the vendor of the appellant to transfer the land,” claiming the land also belonged to his mother, and thus the matter needed to be “gone into afresh.”
However, upon a specific query by the Supreme Court as to where the issue of res judicata was considered by the High Court while upholding the challenge, the counsel for the Respondent fairly submitted that “such issue has not been discussed.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court observed that the impugned order could not be sustained. The Bench laid down that the right to raise a plea of res judicata inheres in the person raising it and demands consideration on its own merits.
The Court observed:
“It is also an established fact that the plea of res judicata has to be taken at the very first instance so as to prevent the misuse and abuse of the process of the Court so that matters already decided are not re-agitated and have to go through the same paraphernalia.”
The Bench further noted that there must be a “judicial application of mind to arrive at a decision whether such plea is sustainable,” which it found was “absolutely not been done under the order impugned.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The matter was remanded back to the High Court for “fresh consideration on merits, especially with regard to the issue of res judicata.”
The Court ordered the revival of CMP No. 602 of 2024 to its original number on the file of the High Court. It directed the High Court to consider the petition after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned sides. The Supreme Court clarified:
“It goes without saying that the High Court shall go into the merits independently and shall not be prejudiced by the present order.”
In the meantime, the Court directed that “status quo, as it exits today, shall be maintained by the parties in all aspects.”
Case Details
- Case Title: Shahid Alam v. Arun Kumar Yadav @ Balmiki Yadav & Ors.
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 13778 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 8540/2025)
- Coram: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
