2005 (4) TMI 631 - SC - Indian Laws

2006 (8) TMI 16 - AT

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the issue of interpolation in the agreement dated 02.09.1978 can be raised again between the same parties in a different suit.
2. Whether the principle of res judicata, waiver, and estoppel precludes respondent No. 1 from raising the issue of interpolation in the agreement dated 02.09.1978.
3. Whether respondent No. 1's undertaking in Civil Revision No. 18 of 1999 binds her from raising the issue of interpolation in another suit.
4. Whether respondent No. 1 is precluded from alleging interpolation in the renewal clause of the agreement dated 02.09.1978.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Raising the Issue of Interpolation Again
The main issue in this appeal is whether an issue already settled in a suit between the same parties regarding the same subject matter can be raised again in a different suit. The earlier proceedings determined that respondent No. 1 could not raise the issue of interpolation in the renewal clause of the lease deed agreement dated 02.09.1978. The High Court held that respondent No. 1 had expressly given up this issue, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 16513 of 2001. Despite this, respondent No. 1 sought to re-agitate the same issue in another suit. The appellants argued that this issue is barred by res judicata, waiver, and estoppel, but the sub-Judge and the High Court of Patna allowed respondent No. 1 to raise the issue again.

Issue 2: Principles of Res Judicata, Waiver, and Estoppel
The appellants contended that the issue of interpolation in the agreement dated 02.09.1978 had already been settled and could not be raised again. The High Court had previously recorded respondent No. 1's undertaking not to raise the issue of interpolation, and this was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The principle of res judicata, waiver, and estoppel prevents the same issue from being re-litigated between the same parties. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellants, holding that the High Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1's undertaking was binding and that she was barred from raising the same issue again.

Issue 3: Binding Undertaking in Civil Revision No. 18 of 1999
Respondent No. 1 had given an undertaking in Civil Revision No. 18 of 1999 that she would not raise the issue of interpolation in the agreement dated 02.09.1978. This undertaking was recorded by the High Court, and the Civil Revision was disposed of accordingly. Respondent No. 1 later filed a review application, which was dismissed, and subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition, which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that respondent No. 1 is precluded from raising the issue of interpolation/forgery in the renewal clause of the agreement again, as the matter had been conclusively settled.

Issue 4: Alleging Interpolation in the Renewal Clause
Respondent No. 1 admitted the execution of the agreement and her signature on the bilateral agreement dated 02.09.1978. Despite this, she later alleged interpolation in the renewal clause. The Supreme Court held that respondent No. 1 is precluded from raising the issue of interpolation in the renewal clause, as it was already settled by the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that once an issue of fact has been judicially determined between the same parties, it cannot be raised again in subsequent proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that respondent No. 1 is precluded from raising the issue of interpolation in the agreement dated 02.09.1978. The High Court's order allowing respondent No. 1 to raise the issue again was set aside. The Court restricted respondent No. 1 from questioning the genuineness of the agreement dated 02.09.1978 and directed that any evidence relating to the genuineness/interpolation or forgery of the agreement should be eschewed from consideration by the trial Court. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →