Amruddin Ansari v. Afajal Ali

April 22, 2025

2025 INSC 566 : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/gtew/
Supreme Court of India
*J.B. Pardiwala; R. Mahadevan; JJ.
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.11442/2023; April 22, 2025
Amruddin Ansari (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Afajal Ali & Ors.

Key Issues:

Whether a fresh suit is maintainable after the dismissal of a restoration application under Order IX Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.)?
Whether a fresh suit is barred by the principle of res judicata following the dismissal of a suit under Order IX Rule 2 or Rule 3 of the C.P.C.?
Validity and evidentiary value of the unregistered document “Wajib Dava” (Exhibit P-1) in establishing title over the suit property.

Held:

Maintainability of Fresh Suit: The Supreme Court held that under Order IX Rule 4 of the C.P.C., the remedies of filing a fresh suit or applying for restoration of a dismissed suit are not mutually exclusive. A plaintiff is not precluded from filing a fresh suit, subject to the law of limitation, even after the rejection of a restoration application under Order IX Rule 4. The absence of an express bar in Rule 4, unlike Rule 9, supports this interpretation. The Court relied on the Privy Council’s decision in Bhudeo v. Musammat Baikunthi (1921) 63 I.C. 239 and subsequent judgments from the Allahabad and Patna High Courts.
Res Judicata: The Court clarified that a dismissal of a suit under Order IX Rule 2 or Rule 3 of the C.P.C. does not constitute a “decree” or “judgment” under Sections 2(2) and 2(9) of the C.P.C., as it lacks adjudication on the merits. Such dismissals are not appealable under Order XLIII of the C.P.C. and, therefore, do not attract the principle of res judicata. A fresh suit on the same cause of action is not barred.
Wajib Dava (Exhibit P-1): The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s reasoning regarding the evidentiary value of the unregistered “Wajib Dava” document. The document, which recorded the relinquishment of rights by the patta holder in favor of the plaintiffs, was not disputed by the defendants and did not require further proof through attesting witnesses.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court’s judgment, which had restored the Trial Court’s decree in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court found no error in the High Court’s conclusions on the maintainability of the suit, the inapplicability of res judicata, and the validity of the Wajib Dava document.

Keywords: Civil Procedure Code, Order IX Rule 4, fresh suit, res judicata, Wajib Dava, unregistered document, maintainability, dismissal for default.

Civil Procedure Code, Dismissal for Default, Fresh Suit, Maintainability, Order IX Rule 4 CPC, Res Judicata, Unregistered Document, Wajib Dava Document

Law Note: Kerala Micro Distillery Rules, 2025May 17, 2025
The Kerala Micro Distillery Rules, 2025, notified under G.O. (P) No. 87/2025/Taxes and S.R.O. No. 574/2025, were enacted by the Government of Kerala on April 29, 2025, under the authority of Section 29 of the Abkari Act, I of 1077.
Law Note: Interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) – Insights from 2025 KER 33579May 17, 2025
Interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), allow a party to a suit to obtain information from their opponent through written questions to support their case, streamline trial proceedings, or reduce litigation costs.
Ground Handling Association v. Union of IndiaMay 16, 2025
Whether CIAL is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022May 15, 2025
The Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022 (amended in 2025) represent a significant step toward integrating India’s legal profession with global legal practices while safeguarding the unique characteristics of the Indian legal system.
Prajida Kumari K. v. State of KeralaMay 13, 2025
Kerala Education Rules (KER), Chapter XIVA, Rule 51A – Preferential Claim for Appointment – Scope and Applicability.
Dr. Manu v. Sree Sankaracharya University of SanskritMay 13, 2025
The petitioner, a Professor and Head of the Department (Hindi) at the Central University of Kerala, sought to set aside orders denying his placement as Professor with effect from 01.06.2009 and requested revision of his placement under the 5th UGC Scheme.
Muhammed Thaha v. Director of Collegiate EducationMay 13, 2025
Appointment of Principal – Approval by University – Right to Information Act, 2005 – Negligence Allegation.
Dr. Sangeetha S. v. State of KeralaMay 13, 2025
Inter-University Transfer – Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, Section 68A
Dr. Muhammed Thaha v. Director of Collegiate EducationMay 13, 2025
Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 7 – Public Information Officer – Duty and Liability – Approval of Appointment – Negligence Allegation.
Constitutional Validity of Section 498A – Insights from Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 536May 11, 2025
In Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court addressed a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 498A, IPC, which criminalizes cruelty by husbands or their relatives against married women, particularly in dowry-related cases.