Res Judicata Bars Subsequent Impleadment Applications if Preceding Rejections on Merits Under Different Provisions Attain Finality

The underlying dispute involves a suit for declaration of ownership over properties bearing Nos. 4677 and 4674. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court partly reversed it, recognizing the Appellant (Sanjiv Kumar) as the adopted son of the original plaintiff and owner of a portion of property No. 4677

Respondents 1 and 2 (prior owners) filed a second appeal (RSA 1795/1990) in the High Court, and the Appellant filed cross-objections

During pendency, Respondents 3 and 4 (subsequent purchasers) bought property No. 4677/A. Their initial impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was dismissed by the High Court in 2000 on the (factually incorrect) ground that the sale defied an injunction

In 2018, both the appeal and cross-objections were dismissed for non-prosecution. The Appellant restored the cross-objections, but the prior owners did not restore the appeal

Respondents 3 and 4 then filed fresh applications for condonation of delay, restoration of the main appeal, and impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. The High Court allowed these applications, recalling its earlier refusal

1. Whether an earlier judicial decision based on an erroneous consideration of facts operates as res judicata in subsequent stages of the same proceedings.

2. Whether the dismissal of an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC bars a subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC regarding the same transfer.

3. Whether subsequent purchasers can be impleaded in cross-objections when the prior owners (transferors) fail to prosecute the litigation.

The court applied Section 11 of the CPC (Res Judicata), noting that the doctrine applies to subsequent stages of the same proceedings

a judicial decision binds parties even if it is wrong on facts or law, provided it is not a matter of jurisdiction (Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy)

erroneous decisions only avoid res judicata if they contravene statutory prohibitions or involve lack of jurisdiction (Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman)

distinction between Order I Rule 10 CPC (joinder of necessary/proper parties) and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC (devolution of interest pendente lite)

transferees pendente lite to be joined if the transferor ceases to take interest or colludes with the opposing party (Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon)

The Court reasoned that the High Court's 2000 order, though based on a factual error regarding an injunction, was a conscious adjudication on merits and had attained finality; thus, it operated as res judicata for any further impleadment in the main appeal

The Court rejected the argument that Order XXII Rule 10 provided a completely "new" cause of action in the main appeal, as the underlying claim (the 1990 sale deed) remained identical

since the 2000 impleadment application was filed only in the main appeal and not the cross-objections, res judicata did not apply to the latter

prior owners’ failure to restore the main appeal while the Appellant revived the cross-objections created a "material change in circumstances" and a risk of collusion, justifying the impleadment of the subsequent purchasers in the cross-objections to protect their interests

set aside the High Court's order to the extent that it restored the main appeal and impleaded Respondents 3 and 4 therein, holding those reliefs were barred by res judicata

upheld the impleadment of Respondents 3 and 4 as respondents in the cross-objections, as no prior adjudication existed in that specific proceeding and the purchasers' interests were otherwise jeopardized by the prior owners' non-prosecution