The Indian Supreme Court has greatly strengthened an important legal principle, stating that res judicata applies not just to different cases but also to different stages of the same proceeding. The judgment came in a civil appeal titled Sultan Saeed Ibrahim vs Publications & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 7108/2025), affirming the Kerala High Court's decision to dismiss a petition challenging impleadment of legal heir in a long-standing property dispute.
Read also: Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Plea Seeking NEET UG 2025 Final Answer Key Before Results
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Justices R. Mahadevan dismissed the appeal and ruled that once the impleadment is accepted without objection and becomes final, raising a fresh challenge at a later stage is barred under the doctrine of constructive res judicata as per Explanation IV of Section 11 of the CPC.
Citing Bhanu Kumar Jain vs Archana Kumar [(2005) 1 SCC 787], the court said, "The principles of res judicata apply not only to two different proceedings but also to different stages of the same proceeding."
Background of the case
The case revolved around a property dispute wherein the original respondent, Jameela Beevi, had entered into an agreement to sell a shop property in Kerala in 1996. After her death in 2008, her legal heirs, including the appellant, were impleaded in the ongoing execution proceedings. The appellant, Sultan Said Ibrahim, who was also a witness to the original sale agreement, did not raise any objection at the time of impleadment.
Read also: Supreme Court AoR Exam 2025 Scheduled for June 16–21: Check Venue, Entry Gates, and Sitting Plan
Years later, he filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking removal of his name from the list of parties, arguing that he was not a legal heir under Mohammedan law and instead claimed tenancy rights over the property.
The trial court dismissed his application, noting that he had several earlier opportunities to object but did not do so. It held that his plea was a deliberate attempt to delay the execution of the decree.
The trial court said, "This petition is another ploy adopted by the respondents to delay the execution of the sale deed in accordance with the decree. The petition is barred by constructive res judicata apart from containing no substance."
Read also: Supreme Court: Res judicata applies to impleadment of legal heir under CPC
The Kerala High Court upheld this decision and said:
"The petitioner was impleaded after due enquiry under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. No objection was raised at that stage and the order has become final. Therefore, the application for removal is barred by res judicata."
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's argument that the impleadment can be challenged later under any other provision. The Court clarified that once the order is passed after due enquiry and becomes final, it cannot be reopened later using any other CPC provision.
It further said:
“The only reason for impleading a person in an action is to bind him to the outcome of the action… When an issue has been conclusively determined at a previous stage, it cannot be raised again.”
On the claim of tenancy, the Court found no valid evidence to prove the appellant’s claim. His belated claim based on an old municipal licence issued much after the litigation had commenced was dismissed as a delaying tactic.
The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the High Court and the trial court, dismissed the appeal with costs of ₹25,000 and directed the executing court to hand over vacant possession of the property to the decree-holder within two months, even using police assistance if necessary.
“The path to justice is often winding… Nevertheless, finality in litigation is important to prevent continued delay and harassment. This Court cannot permit obstructionist tactics to impede the proper execution of a judicial decree.”
Case Title: SULTHAN SAID IBRAHIM VERSUS PRAKASAN & ORS.
