High Court Declines to Interfere Where Trial Court Follows Settled Procedural Law
Case Brief: Dhurpati Devi & Ors. v. Yogendra Bhagat & Ors. C.M.P. No. 419 of 2021
Facts
In the present case before the High Court, the petitioners were defendants (defendant nos. 10, 11 and 13) in Original Suit No. 56 of 2017, a partition suit instituted by the respondents. An earlier partition suit, Title (Partition) Suit No. 150 of 1996, concerning substantially the same family properties, had been dismissed by the civil court by judgment dated 03 September 2016. The dismissal was based, inter alia, on non-joinder of necessary parties, lack of proof of jointness of certain properties, and deficiencies in the description of the suit properties.
Subsequently, one of the plaintiffs of the earlier suit instituted Original Suit No. 56 of 2017 seeking partition of the joint family properties. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application dated 18 February 2019 praying that the trial be dropped at the threshold on the ground that the subsequent suit was barred by res judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-II, Dhanbad, by an order rejected the application holding that the objections raised involved mixed questions of law and fact which could be adjudicated only after framing of issues and leading of evidence. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Legal Issues
(i) Whether the trial court erred in refusing to drop the trial of Original Suit No. 56 of 2017 at the threshold on the ground that it was barred by res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC?
(ii) Whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, could interfere with such an interlocutory order?
Legal Reasoning
The High Court reiterated that its jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate in nature, and interference is warranted only where there is patent lack of jurisdiction, manifest perversity, or gross miscarriage of justice. The Court emphasised that it cannot reappreciate facts or substitute its own view merely because another interpretation is possible.
On the plea of res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC, the Court observed that both doctrines require a comparative examination of pleadings, causes of action, and issues involved in the earlier and subsequent suits. Such determination necessarily involves mixed questions of law and fact. In partition suits, the cause of action is recurring, and dismissal of an earlier suit on technical grounds such as non-joinder of necessary parties does not automatically bar a subsequent suit.
The Court found that the trial court had not rejected the petitioners’ objections on merits but had merely deferred their consideration to an appropriate stage after framing of issues and leading evidence. This approach was consistent with settled procedural law and did not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity.
Holding
The High Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous petition and upheld the order dated 07 September 2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-II, Dhanbad. It was clarified that no opinion had been expressed on the merits of the pleas of res judicata or Order II Rule 2 CPC, which were left open to be decided by the trial court in accordance with law after evidence is led.
