INTRODUCTION
In Sharada Sanghi & Ors. v. Asha Agarwal & Ors., 2026 INSC 292, decided on 25 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, delivered a significant ruling on the interplay between execution proceedings, res judicata and abuse of process.
While holding that dismissal of a suit for default does not operate as res judicata, the Court nevertheless refused relief to the Appellants on the ground that their conduct attracted the broader principle that a litigant cannot abandon proceedings and later attempt to revive the same issues indirectly.
BRIEF FACTS
The Appellants had instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale in respect of a property in Hyderabad. The Suit was decreed and the decree attained finality. Pursuant to this, execution proceedings were initiated and a sale deed was executed through Court.
At the stage of delivery of possession, Third Parties (Respondents), claiming independent title through sale deeds of 1990, resisted execution by filing objections under Order XXI Rules 99–101 CPC.
The Executing Court dismissed the objections, holding that the Respondents failed to prove valid title. However, the Appellate Court reversed this finding and directed the Appellants to seek their remedy through a separate suit, a view which was affirmed by the High Court.
ISSUES OF LAW
The Supreme Court examined:
1) Whether dismissal of earlier suits filed by the Appellants (seeking cancellation of rival sale deeds) for default operates as res judicata.
2) Whether the Appellants, having abandoned earlier proceedings, could enforce the decree through execution proceedings against third parties.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court began by clarifying that dismissal of a suit for default cannot be treated as res judicata since there is no adjudication on merits. Section 11 CPC requires that the matter must have been “heard and finally decided,” which is absent in cases of dismissal for non-prosecution. On this limited legal point, the Court disagreed with the reasoning adopted by the Appellate Court and the High Court.
However, the Court did not grant relief to the Appellants, as it proceeded to examine their conduct in the broader context of procedural fairness and judicial discipline. It noted that the Appellants had earlier instituted two suits challenging the very sale deeds under which the Respondents claimed title, but had allowed both Suits to be dismissed for default. Even the Restoration Applications were dismissed and these Orders attained finality. These proceedings were directly related to the core dispute of title and possession and the Appellants were fully aware of the competing claims of the Respondents.
The Court observed that despite having knowledge of these rival claims, the Appellants chose not to implead the Respondents or their predecessors in the specific performance suit. Instead, they pursued the decree obtained therein and later attempted to enforce it through execution against the Respondents. This conduct, according to the Court, reflected a deliberate attempt to bypass proper adjudication of title by abandoning direct proceedings and seeking indirect relief through execution.
In this backdrop, the Court invoked the broader equitable principle embodied in the maxim nemo debet bis vexari, which prevents repeated litigation on the same cause. It explained that even where strict res judicata does not apply, courts may still prevent re-litigation based on principles of estoppel, waiver and abuse of process. A litigant who had the opportunity to pursue a claim but consciously chose not to do so cannot be permitted to raise the same issue in a different proceeding or at a later stage.
The Court further relied on precedents such as K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi and Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal to emphasise that abandonment of a claim, without liberty to re-agitate it, bars subsequent attempts to revive the same dispute. The principle is rooted in public policy, which demands finality in litigation and seeks to prevent harassment of parties through repeated proceedings.
The Court strongly criticised the Appellants’ approach, noting that litigation cannot be conducted in a selective or strategic manner, invoking judicial remedies when convenient and abandoning them when inconvenient. Allowing such conduct would not only prejudice the opposing party but would also amount to misuse of the judicial process and wastage of judicial time.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal, holding that the Appellants were precluded from enforcing the decree through execution proceedings due to their own conduct in abandoning earlier suits concerning the same subject matter.
This Judgment delivers an important clarification that while dismissal for default does not create res judicata, it may still trigger broader principles of procedural fairness and public policy, preventing a party from reopening or indirectly litigating issues it chose not to pursue earlier.
The ruling reinforces that litigation must come to an end, and courts will not permit parties to recycle abandoned claims through strategic procedural manoeuvres.
SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “क्या यह कोई नया कानून है? क्या अदालत द्वारा इस तरह से फैसला सुनाना उचित है? Harish Rana Exclusive” can be viewed at the link below: