• Facts:
  • The petitioner (defendant) in a suit for injunction challenged a trial court order allowing the plaintiff (respondent) to amend the plaint to seek specific performance.
  • Earlier, the plaintiff had filed Chamber Summons No. 1362 of 2016 for interim relief, which was dismissed due to procedural non-compliance.
  • Subsequently, the plaintiff filed Chamber Summons No. 1741 of 2019 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint for specific performance, which was rejected on 6 April 2021 on the grounds of limitation and lack of sufficient cause.
  • Despite this, the plaintiff filed another amendment application, which the trial court allowed on 1 November 2023, prompting the defendant’s writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
• Issues:
  • Whether a successive amendment application can be allowed after an earlier amendment plea for the same relief was rejected on merits.
  • Whether the principle of res judicata applies to interlocutory orders.
• Reasoning and Analysis:
  • The Supreme Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi (AIR 1960 SC 941) held that res judicata applies not only to final decisions but also to interlocutory orders to ensure judicial finality.
  • The trial court’s rejection of the amendment in 2021 was a final determination, barring a successive application for the same relief.
  • The plaintiff did not challenge the 6 April 2021 order, allowing it to attain finality.
  • Allowing a fresh amendment application circumvented the previous judicial decision, violating the principle of judicial discipline and leading to inconsistent rulings.
  • The High Court ruled that such a successive application amounts to an abuse of process and undermines the finality of judicial orders.
• Decision:
  • The trial court’s order dated 1 November 2023 was set aside as it violated res judicata.
  • The rule was made absolute, and the writ petition was allowed.
  • The High Court reinforced that once an amendment plea is rejected on merits, a fresh application seeking the same relief is impermissible.
• Significance:
  • This ruling reinforces the sanctity of judicial orders and prevents litigants from re-litigating identical issues through successive applications.
  • It clarifies the application of res judicata to interlocutory orders, ensuring finality in litigation and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.
  • The judgment safeguards against abuse of process, setting a precedent for similar cases involving repeated amendment applications.

Case Title: Vandana Prabhakar Pednekar v. Shridhar Chandrakant Bandiwadekar
Date of Order: 17.01.2025
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 15723 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:2207
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Amit Borkar

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539