The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a civil appeal filed by Sharada Sanghi & Ors. challenging the concurrent findings of the first appellate court and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh that had required them to institute a separate civil suit to establish their rights against third-party objectors in execution proceedings arising out of a decree for specific performance. A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih upheld the ultimate conclusion of the lower courts, though for reasons different from those assigned by them.
The appellants had obtained a decree for specific performance in 1998 in respect of a portion of immovable property in Hyderabad. During execution, respondents 1 to 3 resisted delivery of possession claiming independent title on the basis of sale deeds executed in 1990. Significantly, the appellants had themselves instituted two earlier suits (O.S. Nos. 892 and 893 of 1990) seeking cancellation of those very sale deeds, but allowed both suits to be dismissed for default. Even restoration applications were not pursued diligently and met the same fate.
The Court clarified that dismissal of a suit for default does not operate as res judicata under Section 11 CPC since there is no adjudication on merits. However, the appellants’ conduct in instituting the earlier suits, raising positive pleadings, and then deliberately abandoning them attracted the broader equitable principle akin to nemo debet bis vexari, si constet curiae quod sit pro una et eadem causa (no one should be vexed twice for the same cause). The Court observed that a litigant who sets the ball rolling but elects not to pursue the remedy cannot be permitted to revive the same dispute at a later stage, particularly in collateral or execution proceedings, and that too by seeking orders behind the back of the contestants.
Justice Dipankar Datta, authoring the judgment, held that such repeated non-prosecution manifested an intention to steal a march over the defendants by resorting to dubious methods, deliberately avoiding direct proceedings and instead securing orders through proceedings wherein they were not parties. The Court further noted that the increasing influx of litigation is often driven less by a pursuit of justice and more by attempts to delay proceedings, harass opponents, and consume valuable judicial time. Allowing the appellants to reap the benefit of the decree in execution would amount to abuse of the process of the court.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed with the direction that parties shall bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Cause Title: Sharada Sanghi & Ors. v. Asha Agarwal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 292 (Civil Appeal No. 2609 of 2013)
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 