Mohindar Singh v. Kamaljeet Singh

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner(s) : For the Opposite Party(s) : --- Mrs Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate 2/08.07.2025 Heard Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, the learned counsel along with ---- Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by learned Additional District Sessions Judge-III, Koderma in MCA No.12 of 2025 filed in connection with Probate Case No.01 of 2020 whereby the petition filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC was rejected by the learned court.

3. Mrs. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein have instituted Probate Case No.1 of 2020 for grant of probate to the Will dated 01.11.2003 executed by one Trilok Singh in favour of the petitioners, the same was admitted and the Opposite parties have appeared before the learned court. She submits that to include the immovable property and for price of the property in question the amendment petition has been filed which has been rejected by the learned court. She submits that the amendment was formal in nature and the nature of the probate case will not change and in spite of that the learned court has passed the order which is not in accordance with law and in view of that, the said order may kindly be set aside.

4. The Court has perused the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the learned court and finds that the learned court has elaborately dealt with the issue in question and relying on one of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, has further observed that the amendments are required to be allowed liberally in the facts and circumstances of the case. From the said impugned order, it transpires that earlier also the amendment petition was filed by the petitioner which has not been denied in course of the argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same was rejected and thereafter another amendment petition was filed before the learned court.

5. It is well settled that even in a pending suit if a petition is filed and is rejected by the learned court, filing of the second petition on the same ground, amounts to res-judicata. A reference may be made to the case of Sulthan Said Ibrahim Versus Prakasan and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1218, paragraph no.53, 54 and 55 of the said judgment is given below:

53. The High Court, in its impugned order, held the application of the appellant under Order I Rule 10 to be barred by res judicata and thus not maintainable on that ground. We find no infirmity in the said observation mad by the High Court. in Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar reported This Court in (2005) 1 SCC 787 observed that the principles of res judicata apply not only to two different proceedings but also to different stages of the same proceeding as well. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow: “18. It is now well settled that principles of res judicata apply in different stages of the same proceedings. (See Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [AIR 1960 SC 941 : (1960) 3 SCR 590] and Prahlad Singh v. Col. Sukhdev Singh [(1987) 1 SCC 727].)

19. In Y.B. Patil [(1976) 4 SCC 66] it was held : (SCC p. 68, para 4) “4. … It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding.” xxx xxx xxx 21. Yet again in Hope Plantations Ltd. [(1999) 5 SCC 590] this Court laid down the law in the following terms : (SCC p. 604, para 17) “17. … One important consideration of public policy is that the decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction should be final, unless they are modified or reversed by appellate authorities; and the other principle is that no one should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice over, because such a process would be contrary to considerations of fair play and justice.”” (Emphasis supplied)

54. Thus, as the dictum of the law as extracted aforesaid indicates, the only manner in which a decision arrived at by a court of competent jurisdiction can be interfered with is by modification or reversal by the appellate authorities. In the present case, the order for impleadment of the appellant as a legal heir was made by the Trial Court after due inquiry under Order XXII, as also observed by the Trial Court in its order rejecting the application under Order I Rule 10. Evidently, neither any objection was raised by the appellant before the Trial Court nor any revision was preferred subsequently against the said order. Thus, it could be said that the issue as regards the impleadment of the appellant as a legal heir of the original defendant had attained finality between the parties and thus the subsequent application under Order I Rule 10 seeking to get his name deleted from the array of parties could be said to be barred by res judicata. Undoubtedly, the expression “at any stage of the proceedings” used in Order I Rule 10 allows the court to exercise its power at any stage, however the same cannot be construed to mean that the defendant can keep reagitating the same objection at different stages of the same proceeding, when the issue has been determined conclusively at a previous stage. Allowing the same would run contrary to the considerations of fair play and justice and would amount to keeping the parties limbo as regards the adjudication of the disputes. 55. This Court in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi reported in(1960) 3 SCR 590, has noted that the principle of res judicata is essential in giving a finality to judicial decisions. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow: “The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies as between past litigation and future litigation. When a matter — in a state of whether on a question of fact or a question of law — has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again. This principle of res judicata is embodied in relation to suits in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but even where Section 11 does not apply, the principle of res judicata has been applied by courts for the purpose of achieving finality in litigation. The result of this is that the original court as well as any higher court must in any future litigation proceed on the basis that the previous decision was correct. The principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. …” (Emphasis supplied)

6. In view of above, the Court finds that the learned court has considered all these aspects and the parameters of allowing the petition under Order IX Rule 17 of the CPC and thereafter has passed the said order.

7. There is no illegality in the impugned order and as such, C.M.P. No.565 of 2025, is hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,