Successive application for restoration is barred by res judicata where earlier application was dismissed on merits.

The applicant, Bhagwandas, filed this Miscellaneous Civil Case (MCC) seeking the restoration of Second Appeal (S.A.) No. 741/2007 and the setting aside of an order dated 05/02/2026 passed in a previous application, MCC No. 2732/2025.

History shows S.A. No. 741/2007 was dismissed as abated on 23/07/2025 due to the deaths of respondents No. 5 and 8.

The applicant had previously filed MCC No. 2732/2025 to set aside that abatement, but the Court dismissed it on merits on 05/02/2026, finding that the legal heirs of respondent No. 5 had knowledge of the pendency since 2016 but failed to act, and there was no ground to condone the delay.

1. Whether a subsequent MCC for restoration is maintainable when a prior application for the same relief was dismissed on merits.

2. Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to set aside an order passed by a Coordinate Bench in a previous MCC relating to the same matter.

The Court applied the principle of res judicata, which bars the re-litigation of issues already decided on merits between the same parties.

The Court noted that successive review applications are maintainable only "if the same are otherwise maintainable in law" per Jaya Chandra Mohapatra v. Land Acquisition Officer (2005) 9 SCC 123.

The Court distinguished Jaswant Singh & Ors. v. Parkash Kaur & Ors. (2018) 12 SCC 249, which allows secondary restoration applications only if the first was dismissed in default, not on merits.

The Court reasoned that because the previous application (MCC No. 2732/2025) seeking to set aside the abatement of the second appeal was dismissed on its merits—specifically after finding no grounds for condonation of delay regarding respondent No. 5—the current application is barred by the principle of res judicata.

The Court rejected the applicant's reliance on Jaya Chandra Mohapatra, clarifying that the law does not permit successive applications when the prior hit a merits-based adjudication.

The Court held it lacked jurisdiction to "set aside" an order passed by a Coordinate Bench (the 05/02/2026 order), as such an action is not permissible within the same court's original or restorative jurisdiction.

The precedents cited by the applicant were deemed inapplicable because they involved dismissals in default or different factual matrices.

The Court answered both issues in the negative, ruling that it could not entertain a second application for restoration nor sit in judgment over an order of a Coordinate Bench. The application was accordingly dismissed.