A subsequent appeal against an order already adjudicated is barred by res judicata.

The Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 15 May 2006 in proceedings brought by Smt. Puttamma and respondent No. 5 against K. Kumar. K. Kumar appealed, and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed that appeal on 8 July 2011.

The petitioners, claiming to be purchasers of the property, later filed appeals challenging the Assistant Commissioner’s order; the Deputy Commissioner dismissed them as barred by res judicata. The petitioners then sought to quash the 2006, 2011 and 2025 orders, alleging, among other things, lack of notice and that they had not been parties to the earlier proceedings.

1. Whether the petitioners’ later appeals challenging the Assistant Commissioner’s order were maintainable after the Deputy Commissioner had already adjudicated an appeal concerning that order.

2. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s dismissal of the later appeals, and the orders challenged in the writ petition, warranted interference by the High Court.

The Court applied the doctrine of res judicata and the principle that an adjudicated matter attaining finality cannot be reopened through a subsequent appeal on the same subject matter.

It also noted the substantial delay in challenging the earlier orders. The Court did not identify or apply a specific statutory provision or analyze the precedents cited by the petitioners; its decision rested on finality and res judicata.

The Deputy Commissioner had dismissed an earlier appeal against the Assistant Commissioner’s order, and that decision had attained finality. The petitioners’ later appeals challenged the same Assistant Commissioner’s order and were therefore not maintainable, in the Court’s view, and barred by res judicata.

The Court also noted that the petitioners challenged the 2006 and 2011 orders only in 2025, after a lapse of nineteen years from the Assistant Commissioner’s order. It found no ground to interfere with the Deputy Commissioner’s decision.

Any interim order was discharged, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.