Sanjiv Kumarv.Shakuntla Devi & Ors

Res Judicata vs. Changed Circumstances: Supreme Court on Impleadment of Subsequent Purchasers

Case Snapshot

Case Name: Sanjiv Kumar v. Shakuntla Devi & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 747 (Non-Reportable)

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih

Date of Judgment: July 27, 2026

Area of Law: Civil Procedure, Property Law, Res Judicata, Impleadment of Parties

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal against the High Court's interim order, which had condoned a delay of 2109 days, restored a second appeal that had been dismissed for non-prosecution, and impleaded subsequent purchasers as parties.

The case involved a property dispute between the adopted son of the original plaintiff (the appellant) and the prior owners (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2). During the pendency of the second appeal, the prior owners sold a part of the suit property to subsequent purchasers (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4). The subsequent purchasers had earlier filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment, which was dismissed on merits in 2000. Years later, when the main appeal and cross-objections were dismissed for non-prosecution, the subsequent purchasers filed fresh applications for impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, condonation of delay, and restoration of the appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the earlier dismissal of the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC operated as res judicata and barred the subsequent purchasers from seeking the same relief in the main appeal under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. However, the Court found that the subsequent purchasers could be impleaded in the cross-objections because the earlier application was only in the main appeal, and there had been a material change in circumstances—the prior owners had lost interest in the litigation, and there was a possibility of collusion between the appellant and the prior owners.

Relevant Facts

The Property Dispute:

• The original plaintiff, Bhagwan Dai (deceased), and Respondent No. 1, Shakuntla Devi, were both widows of Girdhari Lal.

• Bhagwan Dai filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership over part of property bearing No. 4677 and a 1/2 share in property bearing No. 4674.

• The appellant, Sanjiv Kumar, claimed to be the adopted son of Bhagwan Dai.

Trial Court Decision: The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that Bhagwan Dai died without legal representatives and that the appellant failed to prove he was her adopted son.

First Appellate Court Decision: The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's findings, holding that the appellant was the validly adopted son of Bhagwan Dai and recognized ownership of the original plaintiff over portion of property No. 4677. Restraint orders were passed against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from alienating this specific property.

Second Appeal: Aggrieved by the appellate court judgment, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred a second appeal before the High Court. The appellant also filed cross-objections.

Application Under Order I Rule 10 CPC: Subsequent purchasers (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) filed an application seeking impleadment in the second appeal under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The High Court dismissed this application on May 19, 2000, holding that the subsequent purchasers had purchased the property in defiance of the injunction order.

Dismissal of Main Appeal and Cross-Objections: On February 2, 2018, both the main appeal and cross-objections were dismissed for non-prosecution.

Restoration of Cross-Objections: On July 19, 2019, the appellant successfully sought restoration of the cross-objections. However, the prior owners did not seek restoration of the main appeal despite requests by the subsequent purchasers.

Fresh Applications: The subsequent purchasers filed applications for:

• Condonation of delay of 2109 days

• Restoration of the main appeal

• Impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC in the main appeal and cross-objections

High Court's Impugned Order: The High Court allowed all applications, condoned the delay, restored the main appeal, and impleaded the subsequent purchasers in the main appeal and cross-objections.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to an earlier decision based upon erroneous consideration of facts?

2. Whether there can be a bar on a subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC in the main appeal, in view of the earlier dismissal of an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC?

3. Whether the subsequent purchasers can be impleaded under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC in the cross-objections at this stage?

Legal Framework

• Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Doctrine of res judicata—no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, and has been heard and finally decided.

• Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC: Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue.

• Order I Rule 10 CPC: Power to strike out or add parties—the Court may order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary for effectual and complete adjudication, be added.

• Order XXII Rule 10 CPC: Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit—in cases of assignment, creation, or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved.

• Section 146 CPC: Proceedings by or against representatives—where proceedings may be taken or application made by or against any person, such proceedings may be taken or application may be made by or against any person claiming under him.

• Order XLI Rule 19 CPC: Re-admission of appeal dismissed for default—where an appeal is dismissed for default, the appellant may apply for re-admission.

• Doctrine of Lis Pendens: Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is subject to the final outcome of the suit.

Important Precedents Relied Upon

1. Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman & Ors.

Relied upon by the High Court to hold that an erroneous decision does not operate as res judicata. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, holding that it is not applicable as there was no statutory prohibition or direction, nor was it alleged that the earlier order was passed despite a statutory prohibition or that the High Court lacked jurisdiction.

2. State of West Bengal v. Hemant Kumar Bhattacharjee & Ors.

Cited by the appellant to argue that even an earlier erroneous decision, which has attained finality, would operate as res judicata. The Court agreed with this principle.

3. Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee & Ors.

Cited by the appellant to support the argument that a judicial decision binds whether it is right or wrong, and an error of law or fact cannot be impeached otherwise than in appeal.

4. Daryao & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Cited by the appellant to support the argument on res judicata.

5. Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy (1970) 1 SCC 613

Held that an error of law or fact committed by a judicial or quasi-judicial body cannot be impeached otherwise than in appeal, unless it relates to a matter of jurisdiction.

6. S. Ramachandra Rao v. S. Nagabhushana Rao & Ors.

Held that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable on subsequent stages of the same proceedings if the issue involved has been decided at an earlier stage.

7. Dr. Shah Faesal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (2020) 4 SCC 1

Held that a ruling of a coordinate bench binds subsequent coordinate benches.

8. Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1218

Clarified that once an issue or summary determination is made, it cannot be re-agitated under the guise of a different provision.

9. Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors.

Held that once a transferor pendente lite loses interest in the litigation, the transferee can be added as a party as it may suffer prejudice.

10. Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. v. Farida Khatoon & Anr.

Held that a transferee pendente lite is vitally interested in the litigation and is entitled to be heard on merits, especially where the predecessor in interest may collude with the other party.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

I. The Doctrine of Res Judicata Applies to Erroneous Decisions

The Court began by examining whether the earlier decision dated May 19, 2000, dismissing the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, operated as res judicata, even if based upon erroneous consideration of facts.

The Court's Finding: The Court held that the doctrine of res judicata applies to erroneous decisions as well. A judicial decision binds whether it is right or wrong. An error of law or fact, committed by a judicial or quasi-judicial body, cannot be impeached otherwise than in appeal, unless it relates to a matter of jurisdiction.

Relevant Observations:

• The earlier application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was decided on merits, even though based upon an erroneous consideration of facts.

• Appropriate legal remedies were available for the subsequent purchasers to challenge the findings of the earlier order, but they did not avail them.

• The order dated May 19, 2000, had attained finality.

The High Court's Error: The High Court had erroneously relied on Allahabad Development Authority to hold that an erroneous decision does not operate as res judicata. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, holding that there was no statutory prohibition or direction, nor was it alleged that the earlier order was passed despite a statutory prohibition or that the High Court lacked jurisdiction.

II. Distinction Between Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC

The Court analyzed the distinct nature of the two provisions:

Order I Rule 10 CPC: Governs the addition or deletion of parties who are necessary or proper parties to the suit ab initio, i.e., parties who ought to have been joined at the inception of the suit.

Order XXII Rule 10 CPC: Governs the situation where interest in the subject matter of the suit devolves upon a third party during the pendency of the suit, i.e., a transferee or assignee pendente lite. The provision enables such a person to apply for leave to continue the proceedings or be brought on record as a representative in interest.

The Court's Analysis:

• Both provisions are distinct in nature, but the remedy sought is similar—impleadment of a party.

• The scope of Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 may overlap in certain factual matrices.

III. When Would a Subsequent Application Under Order XXII Rule 10 Be Barred?

The Court laid down the principle:

Where the Order I Rule 10 application was considered and rejected on its merits:

• The court actually examined the transferee's claim, the genuineness/bona fides of the transfer, and the nature of the interest

• The 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

Exceptions where the bar would not apply:

• The earlier rejection was on a technical or procedural ground without an adjudication on the merits of the transferee's interest

• There is a fresh devolution or assignment after the rejection of the application under Order I Rule 10, giving rise to a distinct cause not earlier considered

• The earlier order is itself under challenge and has not attained finality

IV. Application to the Present Case

For the Main Appeal: The Court held that the subsequent purchasers' application under Order XXII Rule 10 in the main appeal was barred by res judicata.

Reasoning:

• The subsequent purchasers had previously sought an identical relief of impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC, predicated upon the same registered sale deed.

• The right to seek substitution or impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC had squarely accrued and was triggered at the time of filing the initial application.

• The remedies under Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 were overlapping as they addressed the same underlying question—whether a person who has acquired an interest pendente lite should be brought on record.

• They were not different causes of action; rather, they were different procedural doors to the same relief.

• The underlying issue—the subsequent buyer's right to be impleaded on the strength of the title—was earlier directly and substantially in issue between the same parties, litigating under the same title, before a court of competent jurisdiction, and was conclusively decided against them.

• The subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC was nothing but a re-agitation of a settled issue under a different statutory provision, which is impermissible and hit by the principles of res judicata.

For the Cross-Objections: The Court held that the subsequent purchasers could be impleaded in the cross-objections.

Reasoning:

• The earlier application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was filed for impleadment in the main appeal only, not in the cross-objections.

• Therefore, the principle of res judicata did not apply to the cross-objections.

• There had been a material change in circumstances:
  The main appeal and cross-objections were dismissed for non-prosecution.
  The cross-objections were revived and restored on an application allowed by the appellant.
  The prior owners did not seek restoration of the main appeal despite requests by the subsequent purchasers.
  This resulted in a material change causing grave prejudice to the rights of the subsequent purchasers.
  There was a possibility of collusion between the appellant and the sellers of the subsequent purchasers.

V. Principles Regarding Transferee Pendente Lite

The Court applied the principles from Thomson Press and Amit Kumar Shaw:

• Once a transferor pendente lite loses interest in the litigation, the transferee can be added as a party as it may suffer prejudice.

• A transferee pendente lite is vitally interested in the litigation and is entitled to be heard on merits, especially where the predecessor in interest may not properly defend the suit or may collude with the other party.

Ratio Decidendi and Key Legal Principles

1. Res Judicata Applies to Erroneous Decisions

The doctrine of res judicata applies even to decisions based upon erroneous consideration of facts. A judicial decision binds whether it is right or wrong. An error of law or fact cannot be impeached otherwise than in appeal, unless it relates to a matter of jurisdiction.

2. Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC are Distinct but May Overlap

Order I Rule 10 CPC governs addition of parties ab initio, while Order XXII Rule 10 CPC governs devolution of interest during the pendency of the suit. Though distinct, they may address the same underlying relief—impleadment of a party.

3. Dismissal Under Order I Rule 10 May Bar Subsequent Application Under Order XXII Rule 10

Where an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC is considered and rejected on its merits, and the order attains finality, a subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC raising the same claim based on the same transfer, same interest, and same facts would ordinarily be barred by res judicata.

4. Exceptions to the Res Judicata Bar

The bar would not apply if:

• The earlier rejection was on a technical or procedural ground without adjudication on merits

• There is a fresh devolution or assignment after the earlier rejection

• The earlier order is under challenge and has not attained finality

5. Changed Circumstances Can Justify Impleadment

Where there is a material change in circumstances—such as the prior owners losing interest in the litigation, non-restoration of the appeal, and the possibility of collusion—subsequent purchasers may be impleaded in proceedings (such as cross-objections) where the earlier res judicata bar does not apply.

6. Transferee Pendente Lite is Entitled to Be Heard

A transferee pendente lite is vitally interested in the litigation and is entitled to be heard on merits, especially where the predecessor in interest may not properly defend the suit or may collude with the other party.

7. The "Substance" Test

Courts must examine the substance of the relief sought, not merely the procedural provision invoked. Where the underlying issue is the same, res judicata may apply even if the procedural provision is different.

Important Court Observations

• "A judicial decision binds whether it is right or wrong. An error of law or fact, committed by a judicial or quasi-judicial body cannot be impeached otherwise than in appeal, unless it relates to a matter of jurisdiction."

• "The case of Allahabad Development Authority (supra) as relied upon by the High Court and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is not applicable to the present set of facts as there is no statutory prohibition or direction nor is it alleged or pleaded that earlier order was passed despite a statutory prohibition or direction or that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to pass the earlier order."

• "The dismissal of an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC does not, as a general rule, operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10. The two provisions address fundamentally distinct legal situations, and a rejection under one does not constitute a final adjudication on the merits of the other."

• "Where the Order I Rule 10 application was considered and rejected on its merits... 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."

• "The remedies under Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 are overlapping as they are addressing the same underlying question as to whether a person who has acquired an interest pendente lite should be brought on record. They are not different causes of action; rather they are different procedural doors to the same relief."

• "The subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC is nothing but a re-agitation of a settled issue under a different statutory provision, which is impermissible and hit by the principles of res judicata."

• "The earlier application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was filed for impleadment in the main appeal only and not in the cross-objections. Therefore, the principle of res judicata will not apply qua the application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC in the cross-objections."

Final Outcome

Appeal Partly Allowed: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal.

Order Set Aside (Partly): The impugned judgment and order of the High Court was set aside insofar as it:

• Condoned the delay of 2109 days

• Restored the main appeal to its original number

• Impleaded Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (subsequent purchasers) in the main appeal

Order Upheld (Partly): The High Court's order impleading Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (subsequent purchasers) in the cross-objections was upheld, subject to the limitation that they would be allowed to defend/contest the cross-objections only to the extent of their interest as assignees of the prior owners.

Direction: The subsequent purchasers (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) shall be at liberty to defend/contest the cross-objections only to the extent of their interest as assignees of the prior owners.

No Order as to Costs.

Practical Impact and Legal Strategy

Why the Judgment Matters

1. Clarifies Interaction Between Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC

The judgment provides important guidance on the relationship between Order I Rule 10 CPC (addition of parties) and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC (devolution of interest). It clarifies that while these provisions are distinct, they may overlap in certain factual matrices, and a dismissal under one may operate as res judicata for the other.

2. Reinforces the Doctrine of Res Judicata

The judgment reaffirms the fundamental principle that res judicata applies even to erroneous decisions. An error of law or fact cannot be used to re-agitate a settled issue.

3. Protects the Finality of Judicial Decisions

By holding that erroneous decisions also operate as res judicata, the judgment protects the finality of judicial decisions and prevents endless litigation.

4. Recognizes the Rights of Transferees Pendente Lite

The judgment recognizes that transferees pendente lite are vitally interested in the litigation and are entitled to be heard, especially where the predecessor in interest may lose interest or collude with the other party.

5. Provides a Framework for Impleadment Decisions

The judgment provides a clear framework for courts to follow when deciding impleadment applications:

• Examine whether the earlier application was decided on merits

• Determine whether the relief sought is the same or distinct

• Consider whether there has been a material change in circumstances

• Balance the need for finality with the need to protect the interests of transferees

How Advocates and Litigants May Rely Upon It

For Parties Opposing Impleadment:

• Cite this judgment to argue that a previous dismissal of an impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC operates as res judicata for a subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC

• Argue that the later application is a re-agitation of a settled issue

• Rely on the principle that erroneous decisions also operate as res judicata

For Parties Seeking Impleadment:

• Cite this judgment to argue for impleadment where:
  The earlier rejection was on a technical or procedural ground without adjudication on merits
  There is a fresh devolution or assignment after the earlier rejection
  The earlier order is under challenge and has not attained finality

• Rely on the changed circumstances exception

• Rely on the right of transferees pendente lite to be heard

For Advocates:

• Cite this judgment to argue the distinction between Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC

• Rely on the judgment to argue that res judicata applies even to erroneous decisions

• Use the judgment to argue for or against impleadment based on the specific facts

Can It Be Cited Before High Courts, Tribunals, or Subordinate Courts?

Yes. While this judgment is marked as "Non-Reportable," it is still a judgment of the Supreme Court of India and can be cited before:

• The Supreme Court of India

• High Courts

• Civil Courts

• Tribunals

• Any authority exercising civil jurisdiction

However, as a non-reportable judgment, it has lesser precedential value than a reportable judgment. It can still be cited as a persuasive authority.

Practical Implications for Future Litigation

1. Strategic Considerations for Impleadment Applications:

• Parties seeking impleadment should consider whether Order I Rule 10 CPC or Order XXII Rule 10 CPC is the appropriate provision

• If an application under one provision is dismissed on merits, a subsequent application under the other provision may be barred by res judicata

• The right to seek impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC accrues at the time of the transfer or devolution of interest

2. Strategic Considerations for Opposing Impleadment:

• If a previous impleadment application was dismissed on merits, cite res judicata

• Argue that the later application is a re-agitation of a settled issue under a different provision

• Rely on the principle that erroneous decisions also operate as res judicata

3. Changed Circumstances Exception:

• A subsequent application may not be barred if:
  The earlier rejection was on a technical or procedural ground
  There is a fresh devolution or assignment after the earlier rejection
  The earlier order is under challenge and has not attained finality

4. Distinction Between Main Appeal and Cross-Objections:

• An order dismissing an impleadment application in the main appeal does not necessarily bar impleadment in the cross-objections

• The scope of the proceedings and the relief sought must be examined separately

5. Rights of Transferees Pendente Lite:

• Transferees pendente lite are vitally interested in the litigation

• They are entitled to be heard on merits, especially where the predecessor in interest may not properly defend the suit or may collude with the other party

6. Finality of Judicial Decisions:

• Even erroneous decisions attain finality if not challenged in appeal

• Such decisions cannot be re-agitated under a different provision

• The doctrine of res judicata protects the finality of judicial decisions

7. The "Substance" Test:

• Courts will examine the substance of the relief sought, not merely the procedural provision invoked

• Where the underlying issue is the same, res judicata may apply

8. Collusion and Loss of Interest:

• Where the prior owners lose interest in the litigation, transferees may be impleaded to protect their interests

• The possibility of collusion between the plaintiff and the prior owners is a relevant factor