Scribd
Upload
316 views2 pages

CPC Hw-8: Ghulam Sarwar Vs Union of India & Ors AIR 1967 SC 1335

The document discusses three court cases related to the legal principle of res judicata: 1) Ghulam Sarwar vs Union Of India & Ors discusses that an order of a High Court is not considered res judicata for a petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. 2) Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs Union Of India discusses that the doctrine of constructive res judicata does not apply to habeas corpus petitions if fresh grounds are presented. 3) Ishwar Dutt vs Land Acquisition Collector discusses that the principle of res judicata applies to different stages of the same legal proceedings if a prior judgment attained finality.

Uploaded by

Chirag Agrawal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
316 views2 pages

CPC Hw-8: Ghulam Sarwar Vs Union of India & Ors AIR 1967 SC 1335

The document discusses three court cases related to the legal principle of res judicata: 1) Ghulam Sarwar vs Union Of India & Ors discusses that an order of a High Court is not considered res judicata for a petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. 2) Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs Union Of India discusses that the doctrine of constructive res judicata does not apply to habeas corpus petitions if fresh grounds are presented. 3) Ishwar Dutt vs Land Acquisition Collector discusses that the principle of res judicata applies to different stages of the same legal proceedings if a prior judgment attained finality.

Uploaded by

Chirag Agrawal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CPC HW- 8

SIMRAN
2018034
SEC: ‘A’

Ghulam Sarwar vs Union Of India & Ors AIR 1967 SC 1335


The order of the High Court does not operate as res judicata, either
because it is not a judgment or because the principle is not applicable to
a fundamentally lawless order, and the Court has to decide the petition
on merits.
In the case of a High Court, when it functions as a Divisional Bench
it speaks for the entire court, and therefore, it cannot set aside the order
made by another Divisional Bench in a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, except on fresh evidence. But when the person detained files an
original petition for habeas corpus before this Court under Art. 32, the
order of-the High Court will not operate as res judicata. If the doctrine
of res judicata is applicable in such a case so would be the
doctrine of constructive res judicata, and, if a petitioner could have
raised a contention which would make the detention order
'fundamentally lawless, but did not do so in the High Court, it would be
deemed to have been raised, and this Court, though enjoined by the
Constitution to protect the right of a person illegally detained, may
become powerless to do so.

Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs Union Of India AIR 1981 SC


728
In the present petition fresh additional grounds had been taken by the
detenu to challenge the legality of his continued detention. Therefore the
subsequent writ petition is not barred as res judicata.
By a long line of decisions this Court has held that the application of the
doctrine of constructive res judicata is confined to civil actions and civil
proceedings. This principle of public policy is entirely in-applicable to
illegal detentions and does not bar a subsequent petition for the writ of
habeas corpus under Art. 32 of the Constitution on fresh grounds which
were not taken in the earlier petition for the same relief.

Ishwar Dutt vs Land Acquisition Collector AIR 2005 SC


3165
The principle of res judicata, as is well-known, would apply in different
proceedings arising out of the same course of action but would also apply
in different stages of the same proceedings. As the judgment and order
passed in C.W.P. No. 510 of 1985 attained finality, the court is of the
opinion that the Respondents herein could not have raised any contention
contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith in any subsequent proceedings.
In fact the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award on
31.1.1991 took into consideration the said direction and awarded 12%
additional compensation at the market value. The said order of the Land
Acquisition Officer never came to be questioned and, thus, attained
finality.
One special variety of estoppel is res judicata. This results from the rule
which prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the
same question over again even though the determination is demonstrably
wrong. Except in proceedings by way of appeal, the parties bound by the
judgment are estopped from questioning it. As between one another they
may neither pursue the same cause of action again, nor may they again
litigate any issue which was an essential element in the decision. These
two aspects are sometimes distinguished as `cause of action estoppel' and
`issue estoppel.'
The principle of res judicata envisages that a judgment of a court of
concurrent jurisdiction directly upon a point would create a bar as regards
a plea, between the same parties in some other matter in another court,
where the said plea seeks to raise afresh the very point that was
determined in the earlier judgment.

You might also like