Introduction:
The Supreme Court, in Sanjiv Kumar v. Shakuntla Devi and Others (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 726), has reaffirmed the binding nature of the doctrine of res judicata, holding that a party cannot seek impleadment through a fresh application under a different provision of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) after an earlier impleadment application has already been decided on merits. The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.
The dispute arose from proceedings before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where subsequent purchasers sought to be impleaded in a pending Regular Second Appeal. Their earlier application under Order I Rule 10 CPC had been rejected on merits. Instead of challenging that order, they filed another application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, seeking substantially the same relief. The High Court allowed the second application, holding that the earlier rejection was based on an erroneous appreciation of facts and therefore would not operate as res judicata. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The principal issue before the Court was whether a subsequent impleadment application under a different provision of the CPC is maintainable when an earlier application seeking the same relief has already been rejected on merits.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellant argued that the High Court committed a serious error by permitting the respondents to reopen an issue that had already attained finality. It was submitted that the earlier application under Order I Rule 10 CPC had been adjudicated on merits after considering the parties’ claims. Merely filing another application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC could not change the substance of the relief sought. The appellant contended that such repeated applications defeat the doctrine of res judicata, which exists to ensure finality in judicial proceedings and prevent repetitive litigation.
The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the earlier order was founded on an incorrect appreciation of facts. They contended that their application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC stood on a different legal footing and therefore deserved independent consideration. According to them, an erroneous decision should not prevent the Court from granting appropriate relief under another statutory provision.
Court’s Judgment:
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the respondents’ subsequent application was clearly barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Court observed that once an impleadment application has been decided on merits, the findings recorded therein become binding between the parties, even if the decision is alleged to be factually incorrect.
The Bench emphasized that an erroneous decision does not lose its binding effect merely because one party believes it to be wrong. If the respondents were dissatisfied with the earlier order, the proper course was to challenge it before a higher forum through the remedies available in law. They could not circumvent the earlier decision by filing another impleadment application under a different provision of the CPC.
The Court held that changing the statutory provision cannot alter the nature of the relief sought. Since both applications essentially sought impleadment in the same proceedings, the second application amounted to a re-agitation of an issue that had already been conclusively decided. Such an approach, the Court observed, is impermissible and directly attracts the principles of res judicata.
The Bench further noted that the doctrine of res judicata is founded on public policy and is intended to bring certainty and finality to judicial decisions. Permitting repeated applications on the same issue under different legal provisions would encourage endless litigation and undermine the administration of justice.
Setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the respondents’ application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC was not maintainable and restored the finality of the earlier order rejecting impleadment. The judgment reinforces that judicial orders remain binding unless they are set aside through the appropriate legal process and cannot be indirectly challenged by invoking a different procedural provision.