Supreme Court Clarifies Maintainability of Fresh Suits After Dismissal Under Order IX Rule 4 CPC

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Amruddin Ansari (Dead) Through LRS & Ors. vs. Afajal Ali & Ors., addressing crucial questions regarding the maintainability of fresh suits after dismissal under Order IX Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The case revolved around a long-standing property dispute and the legal remedies available to plaintiffs when their suit is dismissed for default.

The dispute began when the father of the original plaintiffs filed a civil suit in 1996 for declaration, cancellation of a sale deed, and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed under Order IX Rule 2 CPC for non-appearance, and an application for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 was also dismissed. The plaintiffs later filed a fresh suit in 2001, which was decreed in their favor by the Trial Court. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, leading the plaintiffs to approach the High Court in a Second Appeal. The High Court allowed the appeal, restoring the Trial Court’s decree, and the defendants subsequently approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court framed two key questions for consideration: (1) whether a fresh suit is maintainable after the dismissal of a restoration application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC, and (2) whether such a fresh suit is barred by the principle of res judicata. The Court meticulously analyzed the provisions of Order IX CPC and relied on precedents, including a Privy Council decision in Bhudeo vs. Musammat Baikunthi, to conclude that the remedies under Order IX Rule 4 are not mutually exclusive. The Court observed, “The plain reading of Order IX Rule 4 of the C.P.C. does not bar the filing of a fresh suit, of course, subject to limitation and if that were the intention, we might have found in it a provision similar to that in Order IX Rule 9 of the C.P.C.”

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-clarifies-ancestral-vs-self-acquired-property-rights-in-land-dispute-case/

The Court further clarified that an order of dismissal under Order IX Rule 2 or Rule 3 does not constitute an adjudication and thus cannot operate as res judicata. The judgment emphasized, “From a plain reading of the term ‘decree’, it is manifestly clear that to constitute a decree, there must be a formal expression of an adjudication which conclusively determines the right of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit, but the decree shall not include any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order or any order of dismissal for default.”

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the defendants’ petition and affirming the plaintiffs’ right to file a fresh suit. The judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of Order IX Rule 4 CPC and reinforces the principle that plaintiffs are not barred from seeking justice through fresh litigation when their initial suit is dismissed for procedural reasons.

Petitioner Name: Amruddin Ansari (Dead) Through LRS & Ors..
Respondent Name: Afajal Ali & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan.
Place Of Incident: Ramanujganj, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
Judgment Date: 22-04-2025.
Result: dismissed.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: amruddin-ansari-(dea-vs-afajal-ali-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-22-04-2025.pdf