The Supreme Court has held that dismissal of a suit for default does not operate as res judicata in the absence of adjudication on merits. At the same time, the Court clarified that a litigant who repeatedly allows proceedings to be dismissed without pursuing available remedies may be denied relief on equitable grounds, as such conduct can amount to abuse of the process of court.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed an appeal arising from a property dispute, holding that although the principle of res judicata was not attracted, the appellants’ conduct in abandoning earlier proceedings disentitled them from enforcing a decree through execution.
Background of the Dispute
The appellants, who were the original plaintiffs and decree-holders, had instituted a suit for specific performance in 1988. The suit was based on an agreement for sale dated December 15, 1986, entered into with the son of the property owner concerning a portion of immovable property in Hyderabad. The plaintiffs sought enforcement of the agreement after alleging non-performance by the seller.
In October 1998, the trial court decreed the suit, directing execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession. The decree attained finality, following which the plaintiffs initiated execution proceedings to secure possession of the property.
Objections By Third Parties
During execution, third parties—who were not parties to the original suit—objected to the delivery of possession. They claimed independent title over portions of the property based on sale deeds executed in July 1990. According to them, their title flowed from an alleged oral gift made by the original owner, and therefore, the decree obtained by the plaintiffs did not bind them.
Notably, the plaintiffs had earlier filed separate suits seeking cancellation of these sale deeds. However, both suits were dismissed for default due to non-appearance, and applications for restoration were also dismissed. As a result, the competing claims of title remained unexamined on merits.
Proceedings Before Lower Courts
The executing court rejected the objections raised by the third parties. However, the appellate court set aside that decision and held that the decree-holders were required to institute a separate suit to establish their rights against the objectors. The High Court affirmed this view.
Aggrieved by these findings, the decree-holders approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that dismissal of a suit for default does not constitute res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as such dismissal does not involve a decision on merits. However, the Court emphasised that litigants cannot take advantage of this principle where they have consciously failed to pursue available remedies.
“While a dismissal for default may not constitute res judicata in the strict sense under Section 11, CPC, the conduct of the appellants in abandoning the earlier suits, after having raised a positive case therein, attracts the broader principles akin to nemo debet bis vexari, si constet curiae quod sit pro una et eadem causa,” the Court observed.
It further held that a party that initiates proceedings but later chooses not to pursue them cannot subsequently attempt to revive the same dispute through collateral or execution proceedings, particularly in a manner that prejudices the opposing parties.
Execution Proceedings and Conduct of Appellants
The judgment, authored by Justice Dipankar Datta, disagreed with the reasoning that the appellants were necessarily required to file a separate suit, especially in light of Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers the executing court to adjudicate questions relating to right, title, or interest.
Nevertheless, the Court upheld the rejection of the appellants’ claims in execution proceedings on the ground that they had failed to pursue earlier remedies for cancellation of the sale deeds in favour of the respondents.
“Quite apart, it would also not be unfair to criticise the conduct of the appellants as amounting to an abuse of the process of the court…The process of the court cannot be used to revive what has already been consciously abandoned,” the Court stated.
The Bench also examined the appellants’ conduct and found that despite having opportunities to prosecute the earlier suits and seek their restoration, they repeatedly failed to do so. The Court held that such repeated non-prosecution reflected a deliberate strategy rather than mere negligence.
Clarification of Earlier Precedent
The Court clarified its earlier ruling in Amruddin Ansari v. Afajal Ali [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 488], which held that dismissal of a suit for default does not bar the filing of a fresh suit. It explained that this principle would not apply where a plaintiff deliberately fails to pursue available remedies and repeatedly allows proceedings to be dismissed.
Decision
Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that the appellants were precluded from deriving the benefit of the decree through execution proceedings, having chosen not to pursue the earlier suits.
It upheld the ultimate conclusions reached by the appellate court and the High Court, albeit for different reasons, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.
Cause Title and Appearance
Cause Title: Sharada Sanghi & Ors. v. Asha Agarwal & Ors.
For Appellant(s): Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Senior Advocate; Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, AOR; Mr. Anurag, Advocate; Mr. Arvind Agarwal, Advocate; Mr. Divyansh Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Rohan Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent(s): Mr. Harin P. Raval, Senior Advocate; Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, Senior Advocate; Ms. Urmi H. Raval, Advocate; Ms. Shreya Bansal, Advocate; Ms. Shrestha Narayan, Advocate; Mr. Siddharth H. Raval, Advocate; Mr. Arimardhan Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Nidhi Sharma, AOR; Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, AOR.
Also Read: NCLT Kochi says liquidator cannot decide disputed claims.
