Facts
The dispute concerned ownership of immovable property inherited after the death of Girdhari Lal. During the pendency of the second appeal, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 purchased part of the property from the original defendants and sought impleadment. Their earlier application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was dismissed in 2000. After the second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and only the cross-objections were later restored, the subsequent purchasers filed fresh applications under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, along with applications for restoration of the appeal and condonation of delay. The High Court condoned the delay, restored the appeal, and impleaded them in both the appeal and the cross-objections. The appellant challenged that order.
Issues Framed
(a) Whether the earlier dismissal of the impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC operated as res judicata against a subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC?
(b) Whether the subsequent purchasers could be impleaded in the main appeal and the cross-objections?
Court's Reasoning
(a) Res judicata and subsequent impleadment
The Court reiterated that res judicata applies not only to separate proceedings but also to different stages of the same litigation. Even an erroneous decision, if rendered on merits by a competent court and allowed to attain finality, binds the parties unless challenged through appropriate legal remedies. (Paras 27–31).
The Court explained that although Order I Rule 10 CPC and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC are distinct provisions, their scope may overlap where the impleadment is sought on the basis of the same transfer. If an application under Order I Rule 10 has already been decided on merits regarding the same transfer and the same interest, a fresh application under Order XXII Rule 10 amounts to re-agitating the same issue and is barred by res judicata.
(b) Main appeal and cross-objections
The Court held that the earlier application related only to the main appeal and not to the cross-objections. After dismissal of the main appeal, restoration of only the cross-objections created a material change in circumstances. The prior owners failed to prosecute the appeal, creating a possibility of prejudice and collusion affecting the subsequent purchasers. This constituted a fresh cause of action entitling them to seek impleadment in the cross-objections. The Court relied upon Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon.
Held
The appeal was partly allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order insofar as it restored the main appeal and impleaded the subsequent purchasers therein. However, it upheld their impleadment in the cross-objections.
Ratio
Where an impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC has been finally decided on merits regarding the same transfer and the same interest, a subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC seeking identical relief is ordinarily barred by res judicata. However, a fresh cause of action arising from changed circumstances may justify impleadment in separate proceedings. (Paras 34–43).
Relevant Para
36. Where the Order I Rule 10 application was considered and rejected on its merits i.e., the court actually examined the transferee's claim, the genuineness/bona fides of the transfer, and the nature of the interest, and that order was not appealed or reviewed, a second application under Order XXII Rule 10 raising the claim based on the same transfer, same interest, same facts would ordinarily be barred by the principles of res judicata as issue has been decided on merits and attained finality. This bar however, would not apply if, the earlier rejection was on a technical or procedural ground without an adjudication on the merits of the transferee's interest, or there is a fresh devolution or assignment after the rejection of an application under Order I Rule 10, giving rise to a distinct cause not earlier considered, or when the earlier order is itself under challenge and has not attained finality.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 747
Decided on: 27 July 2026
Case Title: Sanjiv Kumar v. Shakuntla Devi and Others
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Augustine George Masih, J.