Erroneous Impleadment Order Still Binds: Same Claim Cannot Be Re-Litigated Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC After Rejection Under Order I Rule 10, Wrong Judicial Decision Still Operates as Res Judicata Unless Set Aside in Appeal :Supreme Court
Case Name: Sanjiv Kumar v. Shakuntla Devi & Others
Date of Judgment: 27 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 747
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Held: The Supreme Court held that res judicata applies even at subsequent stages of the same proceedings, and a judicial decision that has attained finality binds the parties even if it is erroneous on fact or law, unless the error concerns jurisdiction or the order is otherwise successfully challenged in accordance with law. Although Order I Rule 10 CPC and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC operate in distinct fields, where an earlier impleadment application was consciously decided on merits concerning the same transfer, same interest and same parties, the litigant cannot re-agitate the identical claim merely by invoking Order XXII Rule 10. However, the bar will not apply where there is a subsequent devolution, a materially changed circumstance or a fresh cause of action not adjudicated earlier.
Summary: The litigation concerned property originally belonging to Girdhari Lal and competing claims arising through his two widows and their successors. During pendency of the second appeal, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 purchased a portion of the disputed property through a registered sale deed. They initially sought impleadment in the main second appeal under Order I Rule 10 CPC, but the High Court rejected their application in 2000. That order was never successfully challenged and attained finality.
Years later, both the main appeal and the appellant’s cross-objections were dismissed for non-prosecution. The appellant subsequently succeeded in restoring his cross-objections, whereas the original defendants did not seek restoration of their appeal. The subsequent purchasers then moved fresh applications under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, along with an application seeking restoration of the main appeal. The High Court allowed these applications, condoned a delay of 2,109 days, restored the main appeal and impleaded the purchasers both in the appeal and cross-objections.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reasoning that the earlier impleadment order would cease to operate as res judicata merely because it was factually erroneous. The earlier Order I Rule 10 application had been adjudicated on merits, and an erroneous judicial determination remains binding until appropriately set aside. Since the later Order XXII Rule 10 application in the main appeal relied upon the very same sale deed, transfer and interest already considered earlier, it amounted to re-agitation of a settled issue through a different procedural provision and was barred by res judicata.
The position was different regarding the cross-objections. The earlier application had never sought impleadment in those proceedings. Further, after the main appeal was dismissed and only the cross-objections were restored, the original vendors failed to protect the purchasers’ interests, creating materially changed circumstances and possible prejudice to the transferees. This gave rise to a fresh cause of action. Relying on the principles governing transferees pendente lite, the Court held that such purchasers may be impleaded where their transferor has lost interest in the litigation or may not adequately defend their acquired interest.
Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It set aside the High Court’s order insofar as it restored the main second appeal and impleaded Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 therein, holding that their renewed impleadment claim in the main appeal was barred by res judicata. However, it upheld their impleadment in the appellant’s cross-objections, since the earlier order had not adjudicated their right to join those proceedings and subsequent developments had created a fresh cause of action requiring protection of their pendente lite interest.