Introduction:

The Rajasthan High Court in Charan Singh Khangarot v. Raghunath Singh & Ors. (2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 80) delivered an important ruling emphasizing that a litigant cannot pursue two parallel remedies simultaneously against the same judgment or order. The decision was rendered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand while dismissing a revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging orders passed in execution proceedings. The case arose out of a dispute involving recovery of money based on a sale deed that had been executed and signed by the petitioner. A summary suit had been initiated against him seeking recovery of a specific amount on the strength of that sale deed. The trial court eventually decreed the suit in favour of the claimant and directed recovery of the amount. Following the decree, execution proceedings were initiated before the executing court to enforce the judgment. During the execution proceedings, the petitioner raised objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that all questions arising between the parties relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree must be determined by the executing court. However, the executing court rejected these objections. Dissatisfied with this rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing a revision petition challenging the order of the executing court. The matter came before the Rajasthan High Court where the maintainability of the revision petition itself was questioned by the respondents. They contended that the petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal against the same decree passed by the executing court and that appeal was still pending consideration before the competent court. Therefore, according to the respondents, filing a revision petition simultaneously amounted to pursuing two remedies at the same time for the same cause of action. The High Court was thus required to examine whether a litigant could simultaneously pursue multiple remedies against the same judgment and whether such conduct constituted an abuse of the judicial process.

Arguments Of The Petitioner:

The petitioner argued that the executing court had committed serious errors while rejecting the objections filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the petitioner, the objections raised important questions concerning the legality and enforceability of the decree during execution proceedings. The petitioner contended that Section 47 CPC specifically empowers the executing court to adjudicate disputes relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree and therefore the objections deserved proper consideration. It was submitted that the executing court had dismissed the objections without adequately examining the issues raised by the petitioner and had thereby caused grave prejudice to him. The petitioner further argued that the revision petition filed before the High Court was a legitimate remedy available under law to challenge the order of the executing court. According to him, the High Court possesses supervisory jurisdiction to correct errors committed by subordinate courts, particularly when such errors result in miscarriage of justice. The petitioner maintained that the revision petition was necessary in order to rectify the wrongful rejection of his objections and to ensure that the execution proceedings were conducted in accordance with law. The petitioner attempted to justify the filing of the revision petition by arguing that the remedies available under law are distinct in nature and serve different purposes. He suggested that merely because a statutory appeal had been filed against the decree, it did not necessarily prevent him from challenging the rejection of his objections through a revision petition. According to the petitioner, the revision petition addressed a separate aspect of the proceedings, namely the order passed by the executing court on the objections under Section 47 CPC. Therefore, he contended that the revision petition should be considered independently and should not be dismissed merely because another remedy had also been invoked. The petitioner emphasized that the objective of legal remedies is to ensure justice and that procedural technicalities should not prevent a party from challenging an incorrect order passed by a subordinate court. On this basis, the petitioner urged the High Court to examine the merits of the case and to set aside the order of the executing court.

Arguments Of The Respondents:

The respondents strongly opposed the revision petition and argued that it was not maintainable because the petitioner had already invoked a statutory appeal against the same decree passed by the executing court. According to the respondents, the petitioner was attempting to pursue two parallel remedies simultaneously in relation to the same matter, which is impermissible under established principles of law. The respondents pointed out that the appeal filed by the petitioner was still pending before the competent court and therefore the petitioner could not be allowed to simultaneously challenge the same decree through a revision petition before the High Court. The respondents argued that allowing such a practice would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings and would burden the judicial system with redundant litigation. They further contended that the petitioner was attempting to “hedge his bets” by initiating multiple proceedings in the hope that one of them might succeed. Such conduct, according to the respondents, amounted to an abuse of the judicial process and should not be encouraged by the courts. The respondents also relied upon well established legal principles that when multiple remedies are available to a litigant, the litigant must choose one remedy and pursue it diligently. Once a particular remedy has been chosen, the litigant cannot simultaneously pursue another remedy against the same judgment or order. The respondents argued that permitting parallel remedies would create confusion, lead to inconsistent outcomes, and undermine the finality of judicial decisions. They therefore requested the High Court to dismiss the revision petition on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of the pending statutory appeal filed by the petitioner.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully considering the submissions made by both parties and examining the records of the case, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the rejection of the petitioner’s objections under Section 47 CPC. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the central issue in the case was whether a litigant could simultaneously pursue two parallel remedies against the same judgment or order. The Court noted that the petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal against the decree passed by the executing court and that appeal was still pending for adjudication. Despite having chosen the appellate remedy, the petitioner had also filed a revision petition challenging the rejection of objections raised during the execution proceedings. The Court held that such conduct could not be permitted because it amounted to pursuing two remedies simultaneously for the same cause of action. The High Court emphasized that although the law may provide multiple remedies in certain situations, a litigant must exercise prudence in choosing the appropriate remedy and must abide by that choice. Once a party decides to pursue a particular remedy, that party cannot abandon or supplement it by invoking another remedy simultaneously in relation to the same dispute. Justice Dhand remarked that allowing such practices would encourage litigants to experiment with multiple proceedings in the hope of securing a favourable outcome from one forum or another. The Court observed that this approach would not only create unnecessary complications but would also amount to misuse of the judicial process. The Court further stated that a litigant cannot be allowed to “sail in two boats at the same time.” If a person is permitted to pursue parallel remedies against the same judgment, it would undermine the orderly administration of justice and would place an unfair burden on courts. The High Court explained that the principle underlying this rule is rooted in the Latin maxim “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa,” which means that no person should be vexed twice for the same cause. This maxim reflects the broader legal principle that a dispute should not be litigated repeatedly through multiple proceedings. The Court clarified that although a litigant may have access to more than one remedy in certain circumstances, the simultaneous pursuit of those remedies against the same order or judgment is not permissible. Instead, the litigant must choose one remedy and pursue it until its conclusion. If the litigant fails to obtain relief through the chosen remedy, they cannot subsequently attempt to switch to another remedy merely to secure a different outcome. Justice Dhand observed that the petitioner’s actions clearly demonstrated an attempt to keep multiple options open simultaneously in order to improve his chances of success. The Court described this strategy as an attempt to “hedge his bets,” which cannot be permitted within the framework of judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized that such practices must be strongly discouraged because they amount to abuse of the process of law. The High Court also noted that the existence of parallel proceedings could lead to conflicting decisions and procedural confusion, thereby undermining the efficiency and credibility of the justice system. In light of these considerations, the Court concluded that the revision petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable because a statutory appeal against the same decree had already been filed and was pending. The Court therefore upheld the order rejecting the objections under Section 47 CPC and dismissed the revision petition. Through this decision, the Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed the principle that litigants must exercise discipline in choosing legal remedies and must refrain from initiating multiple parallel proceedings against the same judgment or order.