The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that simply altering the form of relief sought or re-phrasing the prayer will not enable a petitioner to evade the doctrine of res judicata or its wider form, constructive res judicata. The ruling arose from a writ petition filed by a registered MSME (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise) entity which sought protection under the legal regime for stressed MSMEs.
In that case, the petitioner asserted that it qualified as a “stressed MSME” under the relevant central government notification and relied on the decision in Pro Knits v. Canara Bank to contend that coercive recovery action under the SARFAESI regime was invalid because the account had not first been referred to the prescribed MSME committee. The petitioner also challenged an RBI notification which limited application of the MSME framework to accounts with loans of less than Rs. 25 crore, claiming this was violative of the MSMED Act.
However, the Court noted that the petitioner had earlier instituted several prior proceedings (19 proceedings across High Courts, the Supreme Court, DRT and civil courts) raising substantially similar issues with the same parties. All those earlier proceedings had been dismissed. When the instant petition was filed, the petitioner had changed the phrasing of the relief sought but the essential issue — challenge to the same factual or legal foundation — remained unchanged. The High Court held that the exceptions to the doctrine of res judicata did not apply in the present case. As the earlier suit (or petition) between the same parties on the same cause of action had been finally decided, the current petition was barred.
The Court observed that “it is trite that res judicata and constructive res judicata apply with full force to writ proceedings; an earlier rejection bars a second petition unless there are changed circumstances. A change of form or re-phrasing of relief cannot defeat the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata.” The judgment emphasised that the binding component is the “finality” of a decision reached between the same parties on the same issue — not whether the reasoning was correct or the language of the relief has changed.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle of finality in litigation and constitutes a warning against repetitive petitions that merely alter superficial details of relief without altering the substance of the grievance.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.