Fresh application for identical relief without liberty after withdrawal is barred by res judicata and issue estoppel.

The applicants filed the present Original Application (OA) challenging a Speaking Order dated 07.11.2025, seeking appointment under the "Land Loser Category"

The respondents raised a preliminary objection, noting that the applicants had previously filed OA/350/198/2026 for the same reliefs

That previous application was withdrawn by the applicants on 19.02.2026 due to technical errors regarding the common cause of action

However, the Tribunal’s order allowing the withdrawal did not grant liberty to the applicants to file a fresh OA on the same cause of action

Despite this, the applicants filed the instant OA and declared in paragraphs 6 and 7 of their petition that the matter had not been filed previously and that they had exhausted all remedies

1. Whether the current OA is maintainable under the principles of res judicata and issue estoppel when a prior application for identical relief was withdrawn without liberty to refile

2. Whether the applicants' failure to disclose the prior litigation and their subsequent misrepresentation in the pleadings warrants dismissal of the application

The court primarily applied the principles of res judicata and issue estoppel, which preclude a party from re-litigating a matter that has already been adjudicated or a cause of action that was previously abandoned or withdrawn without the court's express permission to institute fresh proceedings

The court also relied on the procedural requirement that applicants must provide truthful undertakings regarding the exhaustion of remedies and the history of prior litigation

The Tribunal compared the prayers in the previous OA/350/198/2026 with the reliefs sought in the current OA/350/378/2026 and found them to be identical, both seeking the quashing of the Speaking Order dated 07.11.2025 and directions for appointment

The court reasoned that since the order dated 19.02.2026 permitted withdrawal but did not explicitly grant "liberty" to file afresh, the applicants were legally barred from reviving the same claim

Furthermore, the court took a serious view of the applicants' conduct, noting that their statements in paragraphs 6 and 7—claiming no previous filing—were "far from truth" and constituted a clear misrepresentation to the Tribunal

It further condemned the misrepresentation made by the applicants regarding the history of the litigation

Consequently, the OA was dismissed. No order as to costs was made