Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.30 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Gram Panchayat Of Village Naulakha vs Ujagar Singh And Ors on 27 September, 2000
22. The decision in earlier case on the issue
between the same parties or persons under whom they
claim title or litigating under the same title, operates as a
res judicata. A plea decided even in a suit for injunction
touching title between the same parties, would operate
as res judicata. (See: Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan
Nair (1994) 2 SCC 14 and Gram Panchayat v. Ujagar
Singh (2000) 7 SCC 543 : AIR 2000 SC 3272.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 11 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay vs T.P. Kumaran on 16 August, 1996
6. Order II Rule 2 applies also to writ proceedings.
The left out portion of a cause of action cannot be
pursued in a subsequent writ proceedings. All claims
which a petitioner might and ought to have taken,
should be taken in one proceedings and only in one
proceedings. (See the decision of the Supreme Court
in Commissioner of Income-tax v. T.P. Kumaran, 1996
10 SCC 561.)
Workmen Of Cochin Port Trust vs Board Of Trustees Of The Cochin Port ... on 5 May, 1978
21. The principle of res judicata comes into play
when by judgment and order a decision of a particular
issue is implicit in it, that is, it must be deemed to have
been necessarily decided by implications not only this,
when any matter which might and ought to have been
made a ground of defence or attack in a former
proceeding but was not so made, then such a matter in
the eyes of the law, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and
to bring about finality in it, is deemed to have been
constructively in issue and, therefore, it is taken as
decided. This was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:41:11 :::HCHP
24
in the judgment of Workmen v. Cochin Port Trust
(1978) 3 SCC 119.
Sulochana Amma vs Narayanan Nair on 24 September, 1993
22. The decision in earlier case on the issue
between the same parties or persons under whom they
claim title or litigating under the same title, operates as a
res judicata. A plea decided even in a suit for injunction
touching title between the same parties, would operate
as res judicata. (See: Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan
Nair (1994) 2 SCC 14 and Gram Panchayat v. Ujagar
Singh (2000) 7 SCC 543 : AIR 2000 SC 3272.
Sidramappa vs Rajashetty And Ors on 9 December, 1969
5. This Rule is based on the principle that the
Defendant shall not be vexed twice for one and the
same cause. The Rule also seeks to prevent two
evils, one the splitting of claims and the other
splitting of remedies. If a Plaintiff omits any portion
of the claim or omits any of the remedies in respect
of the cause, he shall not be permitted to pursue the
omitted claim or the omitted remedy. The
requirement of the Rule is that every suit should
include the whole of the claim which the Plaintiff is
entitled to make in respect of a cause of action.
Cause of action is a cause which gives occasion for
and forms foundation of the suit. If that cause of
action enables a person to ask for a larger and
broader relief than to which he had limited his claim,
he cannot thereafter seek the recovery of the
balance of the cause of action by independent
proceedings. This principle has been also settled by
the Apex Court in Sidramappa v. Rajashetty, 1970
AIR(SC) 1059.
Forward Construction Co. & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri & Ors. ... on 26 November, 1985
19. An adjudication is conclusive and final not only
as to the actual matter determined but as to every other
matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated
and have had it decided as incidental to or essentially
connected with the subject matter of the litigation and
every matter coming within the legitimate purview of the
original action both in respect of the matters of claim or
defence. No doubt, where a matter has been constructive in
issue it cannot be said to have been actually heard and
decided. It could only be deemed to have been heard and
decided. This was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Forward Construction Co. and others versus Prabhat
Mandal (Regd.) Andheri and others (1986) 1 SCC 100
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: