26 Years Of Litigation: MP High Court Says Res Judicata Can't Apply When Earlier Adjudication Was Inconclusive

Jayanti Pahwa

24 Aug 2026 9:30 AM IST

  • 26 Years Of Litigation: MP High Court Says Res Judicata Cant Apply When Earlier Adjudication Was Inconclusive
    Listen to this Article

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that principle of res judiciata under Section 11 CPC woild not apply where proceedings remanded for consideration remained undecided and adjudication remained inconclusive. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 339]

    The appellant was appointed as daily wage employee in the Revenue Departmental of Municipal Corporation but his services were terminated 'illegally'. In his writ petition before the High Court on 1999, the matter was remanded back to the Collector for consideration but the latter did not till date adjudicate the matter.

    Thus, the division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice BP Sharma observed,

    "when matter was relegated to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Katni for consideration, the Commissioner did not consider it. Therefore, adjudication remained inconclusive. In that condition, application of res-judicata would not be applied, and learned writ Court erred in coming to the conclusion and deciding the controversy on the lynch pin of res-judicata".

    Two writ appeals were filed by the appellant against the order of January 16, 2024 wherein the petition filed by respondent no 2 (Municipal Corporation of Katni) was allowed and appellant's petition was dismissed on the ground of res judicata.

    Per the appellant, he had worked continuously for more than 240 days before his termination. He contended that his services were terminated without following the mandatory provisions of Labour Laws. He further argued that several employees junior to him, whose services were also terminated by the same order were subsequently reinstated.

    The appellant initially approached the High Court in 1999, wherein the matter was remanded to Commissioner of Municipal Corporation. However, the latter did not adjudicate the matter.

    The employee thereafter approached the Labour Court, which granted him relief by reinstating him but did not grant him back wages.

    The Municipal Corporation challenged the Labour Court's decision before the writ court, while appellant sought relief against denial of back wages. The writ court allowed the proceedings against the employee and dismissed his petition on ground of res judicata.

    The senior counsel for the appellant contended that the writ court had committed a grave error in setting aside the Labour Court order whereas similarly situated persons like appellant were taken back into service. Therefore the appellant was also entitled to same benefit.

    The counsel for the respondent opposed the contentions arguing that the writ court's finding were just and proper.

    The court remarked, "This is a case, where appellant/employee is running from pillar to post and post to pillar for last more than 26 years to get his case adjudicated".

    The bench noted that the appellant had approached the court but the matter was remanded to the Commission of Municipal Corporation but the same was not considered. Thus, compelled by circumstances, the appellant had approached the Labour Court.

    The appellant succeeded in Labour Court, compelling the Municipal Corporation to approached the writ court. The court noted that the proceedings initiated by appellant or Municipal corporation do not fall under Section 11 CPC, which sets the rule of res judicata which means that a court cannot try new suit or issue if the same was directly and substantially decided by a competent court.

    In the present case, the court noted that when the matter was relegated to the Commissioner for consideration, it was not considered and therefore adjudication remained inconclusive.

    Thus, the bench allowed both appeals and set aside the impugned orders. The bench also directed the parties to appear before the writ court and directed the writ court to expedite the matter.

    Case Title: Vinod Kumar Badgaiyan v State of Madhya Pradesh, WA-656-2024

    Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 339

    For Appellant: Senior Adovcate Sanjay Ram Tamrakar with Advocate Rambachan Sahu

    For State: Government Advocate Rajesh Tiwari

    For Municipal Corporation: Advocates Utkarsh Agrawal and Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi

    Click here to read/download the Order

    Jayanti Pahwa

    Jayanti Pahwa

    Jayanti Pahwa is a Correspondent with LiveLaw, covering the Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Next Story