Litigation strategy cannot replace litigation diligence, this is the clear message from the Supreme Court of India in a significant ruling on execution proceedings and abuse of process.In Sharada Sanghi v. Asha Agarwal (2026 INSC 292), the Court denied decree-holders the right to seek specific performance decree against third parties, after having previously abandoned suits expressly challenging the title of such third parties.A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih upheld dismissal of the execution challenge, holding that while strict res judicata may not apply, the conduct of the appellants amounted to abuse of process, disentitling them from relief.Background of the DisputeThe dispute traces back to an agreement for sale dated 15.12.1986 relating to a portion of property in Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad. The appellants had entered into the agreement with the successor of the original owner and subsequently instituted a suit for specific performance.That suit was decreed in their favour in 1998, and the decree attained finality. During execution, a sale deed was executed through court, and steps for delivery of possession were initiated. However, resistance emerged when third parties, the respondents, entered the scene asserting independent title based on sale deeds executed in 1990. They asserted that their vendor derived title through an oral gift from the original owner.Significantly, these respondents were not parties to the original specific performance suit. When delivery of possession was sought, the respondents filed objections under Order XXI Rules 99 to 101 CPC, claiming independent ownership and resisting execution.Parallel Litigation and a Critical MisstepWhat proved decisive in this case was not merely the competing claims to title, but the litigation conduct of the appellants.During the pendency of the specific performance suit, the appellants themselves had filed two separate suits seeking cancellation of the very sale deeds under which the respondents claimed title.However, both suits were dismissed for default. Even the restoration applications filed thereafter were dismissed, and the appellants allowed those orders to attain finality.This sequence of events became central to the Court’s reasoning.The executing court initially rejected the objections of the respondents, holding that they had failed to establish valid title. However, the Appellate Court reversed this, holding that the respondents were not bound by the decree and that the appellants must file a separate suit.The High Court affirmed this view, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.Submissions Before the Supreme CourtThe appellants argued that the Appellate Court had erred in directing them to file a separate suit despite the wide scope of adjudication under Order XXI Rule 101 CPC.They relied on the doctrine of lis pendens, arguing that the respondents’ sale deeds were executed during pendency of the specific performance suit and could not defeat their rights.They further argued that the respondents had no valid title, as the oral gift was neither proved nor legally valid.On the other hand, the respondents emphasized that the appellants had already challenged their sale deeds in earlier suits but abandoned those proceedings. Having allowed those proceedings to lapse, they could not now reopen the same issue indirectly through execution.Court’s Analysis: Not Res Judicata (a matter judged.), But Something BroaderThe Supreme Court first addressed whether dismissal of earlier suits for default would operate as res judicata.The Court held:“Dismissal of a suit for default, not being a decision on merits, cannot ordinarily be regarded as a final adjudication so as to attract the strict application of Section 11, CPC.”However, the Court did not stop there. It went on to examine the broader consequences of the appellants’ conduct. The Court shifted focus from strict procedural bars to equitable principles and litigation conduct.It invoked the maxim:“nemo debet bis vexari…” — meaning that no person should be vexed twice for the same cause.On its relevance, the Court noted that although res judicata is not always strictly applicable, a litigant cannot be allowed to reopen the same issue when he had an opportunity to pursue it previously and he decided not to do so.Explaining its relevance, the Court observed that even where res judicata does not strictly apply, a litigant cannot be permitted to raise the same issue again after having had an opportunity to pursue it earlier and choosing not to do so.The Court made a critical observation:“A litigant who set the ball rolling for decision on an issue later elects not to pursue it cannot be permitted to revive the same dispute at a later stage…”This marked a shift from technical doctrine to principles of fairness, finality, and judicial discipline. The Court found that the appellants were fully aware of the respondents’ claims, having themselves challenged the sale deeds earlier.Despite this, they:
- failed to pursue those suits,
- allowed them to be dismissed,
- and did not take effective steps for restoration.
The Court held that such conduct was not mere negligence but indicative of a calculated litigation strategy.It observed:“Such repeated non-prosecution… manifests that the appellants intended to steal a march… by resorting to dubious methods…”The Court emphasized that execution proceedings cannot be used to indirectly achieve what was abandoned in substantive proceedings.The Court relied on the principle laid down in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi and reiterated:“Re-litigation… may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be reagitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.”It further cautioned against misuse of judicial process:“The judicial process is designed to resolve genuine disputes and not facilitate repetitive or frivolous claims.”The Court underscored that allowing such conduct would undermine finality and waste judicial time.The Court also invoked equitable principles governing specific performance, noting that such relief (prior to the 2018 amendment) was discretionary and dependent on conduct. Relying on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, it reiterated that a litigant must approach the court with clean hands.It observed that selective prosecution of proceedings and suppression of relevant litigation history raised serious concerns about bona fides.The Court stressed the importance of finality in litigation, referring to the maxim:“interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” — it is in public interest that litigation must come to an end.It held that permitting repeated or indirect challenges would defeat this principle.The Court also referred to Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal to highlight that even withdrawal or abandonment of proceedings can bar fresh litigation on the same cause, based on public policy.In conclusion, the Court held that although the reasoning of the Appellate Court on res judicata was incorrect, its ultimate conclusion was justified.The Court held:“The appellants stand precluded to reap the benefit of the decree through execution proceedings having chosen not to pursue [earlier suits].”The appeal was dismissed, with the Court refusing to interfere, holding that the attempt to enforce the decree in such circumstances amounted to abuse of process.CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2609 OF 2013SHARADA SANGHI & ORS. Vs ASHA AGARWAL & ORS.Appearance:For Appellant(s): Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, AOR Mr. Anurag, Adv. Mr. Arvind Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv.For Respondent(s): Mr. Harin P Raval, Sr. Adv. Mr. R Anand Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Urmi H Raval, Adv. Ms. Shreya Bansal, Adv. Ms. Shrestha Narayan, Adv. Mr. Siddharth H Raval, Adv. Mr. Arimardhan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Sharma, AOR Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, AOR(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
