This civil appeal challenged an interim order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which had allowed applications for condoning a long delay, restoring a regular second appeal, and impleading subsequent purchasers (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) as parties in both the main second appeal and cross-objections. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, ruling that since an earlier application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC filed by the subsequent purchasers had been dismissed on merits and attained finality, the principle of res judicata barred a second attempt for the same relief in the main appeal—even if the initial order was based on a factual misconception. However, because the prior application was restricted to the main appeal and did not cover the cross-objections where the purchased property was directly involved, and keeping in view the risk of collusion and abandonment of interest by the transferors, the Supreme Court upheld the impleadment of the subsequent purchasers in the cross-objections while setting aside the restoration of the main appeal.

• Factual Background:
  • The litigation originated from a property dispute among the legal heirs of Girdhari Lal, involving original plaintiff Bhagwan Dai and defendant Shakuntala Devi (widows of Girdhari Lal), and the appellant Sanjiv Kumar (claimed as adopted son).
  • The First Appellate Court partly ruled in favor of the appellant, declaring him the adopted son and recognizing ownership over a specific portion of property (Property No. 4677).
  • During the second appeal filed by the prior owners, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 purchased a part of the property (Property No. 4677/A) via a registered sale deed dated June 28, 1990.
• Prior Procedural History:
  • The subsequent purchasers previously filed an impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, which the High Court dismissed on May 19, 2000, under the misconception that the purchase violated an injunction. That order attained finality.
  • Later, both the main appeal and cross-objections were dismissed for non-prosecution, but only the appellant’s cross-objections were subsequently restored.
  • The subsequent purchasers filed fresh applications for condonation of delay, restoration of the main appeal, and impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC, which the High Court allowed via the impugned order.
• Supreme Court’s Legal Reasoning & Findings:
  • Application of Res Judicata: The Court reiterated that an erroneous judicial decision, unless corrected through proper appeal or review, remains binding and operates as res judicata at subsequent stages of the same proceedings.
  • Bar in the Main Appeal: Because an identical impleadment prayer under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was previously adjudicated and rejected on merits, a subsequent application for the same relief regarding the main appeal is barred by res judicata, notwithstanding any factual errors in the earlier order. Consequently, the main appeal could not be restored at the behest of these purchasers.
  • Permissibility in Cross-Objections: The earlier rejection did not bar impleadment in the cross-objections under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC, as the previous application did not concern the cross-objections.
  • Protection Against Collusion: Citing precedents like Thomson Press and Amit Kumar Shaw, the Court noted that a pendente lite transferee is vitally interested in protecting their property when the transferor loses interest or potentially colludes with the opposing party.
• Relief Granted:
  • The Supreme Court partly set aside the High Court’s order, reversing the restoration of the main appeal and the impleadment of the subsequent purchasers therein.
  • The High Court’s order allowing the impleadment of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as respondents in the cross-objections was sustained.

2026 INSC 747

Sanjiv Kumar v. Shakuntla Devi and Others (D.O.J. 27.07.2026)