P&H High Court Dismisses Appeal; Fresh Suit After Withdrawal Held Barred Under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC

Case Name: Beant Singh (deceased) through LRs vs. Sucha Singh (deceased) through LRs and Others
Date of Judgment: 10 November 2025
Citation: RSA-3731-1997
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit. It held that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit in 1986 on the same claim of ownership under the Will dated 07.10.1980 and had withdrawn it on 29.04.1988 without seeking liberty to file a fresh suit. The Court ruled that the second suit, based on the same will, same property, and same challenge to the defendants’ alleged later will, was barred by Order 23 Rule 1(4)(b) CPC. It held that the plaintiff attempted to disguise the old cause of action by framing the suit as a challenge to the Financial Commissioner’s mutation order of 02.02.1990, but the core subject matter remained identical.

Summary: The plaintiff claimed ownership of 35 kanals 8 marlas of land and a house on the basis of Ganda Singh’s registered Will of 07.10.1980. He asserted that the defendants forged an unregistered Will dated 15.12.1983. The Trial Court decreed the suit and held the mutation order void. The First Appellate Court reversed the decree solely on the bar of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC. In second appeal, the plaintiff argued that the earlier suit could not bar the present suit because the Financial Commissioner’s order did not exist in 1986. The Court rejected this argument and held that the “subject matter” consisted of the bundle of facts giving rise to the claim—namely succession under the 1980 Will and challenge to the defendants’ Will. Relying on Vallabh Das, Vimala, Kurji Jinabhai, and Inderpal Singh, the Court ruled that the earlier withdrawal without liberty barred the second suit. It also reiterated that mutation does not create or extinguish title and is only a fiscal entry.

Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were affirmed. All pending applications were disposed of.