Courts Must Maintain Consistency In Interim And Final Orders To Preserve Judicial Discipline And Public Confidence: Karnataka High Court

The Court was hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the trial court which stayed the proceedings in a civil suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, despite an earlier application seeking identical relief having already been rejected.

The Court held that inconsistent orders on identical issues erode the faith of the general public in the judicial institution and are contrary to settled principles governing judicial conduct.

A Bench presided over by Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty observed: “The Courts, while rendering judgments or passing interim orders, should maintain consistency. Judicial discipline and propriety largely depend on such consistency, and the purpose and object behind the same is to prevent discrimination and arbitrariness. Otherwise, there is a scope of being accused of being partial, unfair and discriminatory”.

Advocate Madhukar M. Deshpande represented the petitioners, while Advocate S. Shivashankara represented the respondents.

Background

The petitioner had instituted a civil suit seeking recovery of a substantial sum with interest, alleging loss caused due to collusion between the defendants in defeating an order passed by the Company Law Board. The defendants contested the claim by filing written statements.

During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by some of the defendants seeking stay of proceedings on the ground that a previously instituted suit between the parties involved similar issues. That application was rejected by the trial court, and the order attained finality.

Subsequently, another defendant filed a fresh application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking a stay of the same suit on identical grounds. The trial court allowed this later application, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.

Court’s Observation

The Karnataka High Court examined the scope and object of Section 10 CPC and reiterated that "Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits is identical".

The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi, has held that the principle of res judicata applies not only between separate proceedings but also at successive stages of the same proceeding. Once a matter is decided at an earlier stage, it cannot be re-agitated at a later stage.

Relying on Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, the Court observed that orders of a general nature passed during the pendency of a suit are binding on all parties and that the principle underlying res judicata applies equally to decisions rendered at different stages of the same proceeding.

The High Court further underscored that courts, while rendering judgments or passing interim orders, must maintain consistency. Judicial discipline and propriety largely depend on such consistency, and the object behind it is to prevent arbitrariness and discrimination.

“A judicial officer may have a different view on a point for consideration, but on the same point in the same proceeding, if an order is already passed earlier, he is bound to maintain consistency. A judicial officer may err and pass illegal orders, but he should not pass inconsistent orders which would undermine the faith of the general public in the institution”, the Court further remarked.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the trial court acted contrary to law in allowing the subsequent application under Section 10 CPC after having earlier rejected an identical application, and such an approach could not be sustained. "If it is found that issues framed in the subsequent suit, was not directly or substantially in issue in the earlier suit, then Section 10 of CPC does not get attracted", the Court further highlighted while concluding that "the Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter".

Conclusion

The High Court concluded that the trial court had wrongly entertained a second application seeking the same relief, which was already rejected earlier and had attained finality.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order staying the proceedings was set aside, and the application filed under Section 10 CPC was rejected.

Cause Title: M/s Sree Gururaja Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Cimec Enterprises & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:50505)

Appearances

Petitioner: Madhukar M. Deshpande, Advocate

Respondents: Advocates S. Shivashankara, S. Subramanya, Ananditha S

Click here to read/download Judgment