Date of Judgment 27/03/1961
Court Supreme Court of India
Appellant Daryao & Other
Respondent The State of UP
Bench. Gajendragadkar, PB., Sarkar, A.K., Wanchoo, K.N.Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N.Rajagopala
Referred Article 32, Article 226, Section 11 CPC.
Case Type Issue Writ Petition
FACTS OF CASE
The Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of Daryao and Others vs. The State of UP and Others on March 27, 1961. The case is also known as AIR 1457, 1961 SCR (1). The following are the case’s facts: The land specified in the petition was leased by the petitioner and their ancestors. within the said land. An annexure that is part of the petition states that the respondents have owned the property for fifty years.
The petitioners left their hamlet in July 1947 due to racial unrest in Uttar Pradesh’s Western District; upon their return in November 1947, they discovered that the respondents had illegally entered into possession during their brief absence.
The case involves a writ petition filed in accordance with Articles 226 and 32 of the Indian Constitution and the interpretation and application of the res judicata doctrine. Based on the broad idea of res judicata, the court concluded that a writ petition filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the same circumstances and for the same remedy should be dismissed.
ISSUE
If a case is determined or dismissed on the merits, does the doctrine of res judicata apply.
ARGUMENTS
The Supreme Court of India rendered a decision in the case of Daryao and Others vs. The State of U.P. & Others on March 27, 1961. Other names for the case include 1961 AIR 1457, 1962 SCR
The Supreme Court expanded and construed the Res Judicata doctrine in this judgement. a crucial part in deciding whether to grant the petition regarding Articles 226 and 32 of the Indian Constitution. Before this case, it was speculated and decided that the Doctrine of Res Judicata bears an impractical and irrelevant role in resolving the petition under the purview of Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution.
The question at issue was whether the dismissal of a writ petition filed by a party—a plea for relief or remedy before the High—created a bar of res judicata against a similar petition filed in the supreme court under Article 32 on similar facts and requesting the same or similar writ.
It was determined that the theory of Res Judicata does not violate Articles 226 and 32 of the Indian Constitution in dismissing the petition filed thereunder. As a result, it acts as a particular composite element in rejecting the petition on the same grounds and remedy.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court of India rendered a decision in the case of Daryao and Others vs. The State of UP and Others on March 27, 1961. A different name for the incident is 1961 AIR 1457, 1962 SCR (1). Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar, Justice A.K. Sarkar, and Justice K.N. made up the court panel that rendered the decision.
JUSTICE WANCHOO Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and K.C. Das.
The case is notable because it clarified and expanded the Res Judicata doctrine. The theory, which was examined in the context of a petition relative to Articles 226 and 32 of the Indian Constitution, was covered in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. The issue arose was whether or not a party’s plea for relief filed in a writ petition should be dismissed.
This ruling has an effect on future cases in India since it established that a comparable petition filed before the supreme court under Article 32 on the basis of a part-petitioner’s dismissal of a writ petition seeking relief or remedy before the high court sets a bar of res judicata.
Requesting the same or similar writ while praying for comparable facts. This means that if a writ petition is denied by a High Court, no comparable petition may be brought under Article 32 at the Supreme Court, requesting the same or a similar relief, on the same grounds. This has made it easier to avoid needless litigation and ensure that judicial rulings are definitive.
Written by Abdul Rehman an intern under legal vidhiya.
