Writ jurisdiction. “Public policy demands that parties shall not be permitted to bring fresh litigation on the same cause of action in the guise of new grounds which could’ve been urged in the earlier proceeding”. Karnataka High Court.

Arshad Ispat and Others vs Union of India and others. Writ Appeal 395/2020 decided on 10 July 2020. Author Justice M. Nagaprasanna.

Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/335508/1/WA395-20-10-07-2020.pdf

Relevant paragraphs: 13. …..Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is always equitable and discretionary. In this appeal, we are testing an order made in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226. Therefore, the conduct of the appellants who invoked the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is very relevant.

18. If the prayers sought in writ petition Nos.9687- 89/2017 are juxtaposed with the prayers sought in W.P. No.51184/2017, it becomes unmistakably clear that the reliefs sought in both the writ petitions were substantially the same. In the garb of raising a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 6(c) of the Amendment Act of 2012, the relief sought was to quash the order of the District Magistrate dated 16^th October 2017 and confirmation of sale in favour of 6^th respondent dated 24^th August 2016. The prayer (d) in earlier W.P.Nos.9687-89/2017    and   the   prayer   (a)   in   the   later W.P.No.51184/2017 are one and the same.

20. The Amendment Act of 2012 was promulgated on 3^rd January 2013. The 1^st writ petition in W.P.Nos.9687- 89/2017 was filed by the appellants on 2^nd March 2017. This ground of challenge to the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act of 2012 was always available when they filed a writ petition at the earliest point of time.

21. Now, after all the aforestated sequence of events, entertaining this appeal will be opposed to the principles of public policy. It is in the interest of public at large that a finality should attach to the decisions pronounced by the Courts of competent jurisdiction and is also in public interest that none should be vexed twice over the same kind of litigation. Parties should not be permitted to bring fresh litigations because of new views that they may entertain every time. If this were permitted, litigations would have no end except when legal ingenuity is exhausted. The appellants filing another writ petition substantially for the same relief, substantially on the same allegation cannot be permitted, as the previous decision of this Court which has became final cannot be reopened in the present case as the earlier order passed will govern the rights and obligations of the parties.

Writ Appeal Dismissed.

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal