Amruddin Ansari (Dead) through LRs & Ors. v. Afajal Ali & Ors., 2025
The Court clarified that dismissal in default is not an adjudication on merits and not appealable under Order XLIII CPC.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
28 April 2025
Judges
Justice JB Pardiwala ⦁ Justice R Mahadevan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The plaintiff's father's suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed under Order IX Rule 2 due to the non-appearance of both parties.
-
The plaintiff filed an application under Rule 4 of Order IX CPC seeking the restoration of the suit, but it was dismissed, and this order attained finality.
-
The plaintiff then filed a fresh suit for the same reliefs under Rule 4, which was allowed by the trial court.
-
The First Appellate Court reversed the trial court's order, but the High Court restored it, allowing the fresh suit.
-
The defendant challenged the High Court's decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the fresh suit was barred by res judicata.
Issues
-
Whether the dismissal of a suit for default under Order IX Rules 2 or 3 of CPC prevents the filing of a fresh suit on the same cause of action?
-
Whether the principle of res judicata applies to a suit dismissed for default under Order IX Rules 2 or 3 of the CPC?
Held
-
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, restoring the trial court's order to allow the plaintiff's fresh suit based on the same cause of action.
-
The dismissal of the previous suit for default does not bar the fresh suit under Rule 4 of Order IX CPC due to the non-application of res judicata.
Analysis
-
The judgment clarified that dismissal for default under Order IX does not represent an adjudication on the merits of the case. As such, the principle of res judicata does not apply.
-
The Court underscored the legislative intent behind Rule 4 of Order IX, which allows the filing of a fresh suit or an application for restoration, thus enabling plaintiffs to pursue their claims despite earlier defaults.
-
This decision strengthens the procedural flexibility granted to litigants under the CPC and ensures that parties are not deprived of their right to remedy solely because of procedural defaults, as long as they act within the prescribed timelines.