Petitioner’s simultaneous appeal and objection against the same judgment termed as abuse of legal process.
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, under the stewardship of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, has dismissed a revision petition filed by Charan Singh Khangarot against an order rejecting his objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The court held that pursuing two parallel legal remedies simultaneously against the same judgment constitutes an abuse of the legal process.
The case, "Charan Singh Khangarot v. Raghunath Singh and Ors.," revolved around a summary suit filed by Raghunath Singh against Khangarot and others, including an LLP firm, for the recovery of Rs. 4,54,12,000 based on a sale deed. The petitioner, Charan Singh Khangarot, contested the execution of the judgment and decree dated January 8, 2025, by submitting objections under Section 47 CPC, even as he filed a statutory appeal against the same judgment.
The court, referencing the Latin maxim "Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa," emphasized that no individual should be vexed twice for the same cause, thereby dismissing the petition on grounds of non-maintainability. Justice Dhand articulated that the legal system does not permit litigants to pursue two parallel remedies for the same matter, underscoring the necessity for the petitioner to choose and adhere to a single legal path.
In his defense, Khangarot’s counsel argued that the petitioner was not liable for the obligations of the LLP firm, having retired from the firm prior to the issuance of any cheque related to the sale deed. However, the court noted that the petitioner’s wife had issued a cheque in furtherance of the sale deed, which was dishonored, thereby implicating Khangarot in the affairs of the LLP firm.
The court affirmed that once a party opts for a particular remedy, they are bound by it and cannot switch remedies mid-proceeding, labeling such actions as detrimental to the legal process. The decision reiterated the foundational principle that pursuing multiple remedies for the same judgment is impermissible.
Despite dismissing the revision petition, the court granted Khangarot the liberty to present all grounds raised in the dismissed petition in his ongoing statutory appeal. The ruling highlights the judiciary's commitment to preventing the misuse of the legal system and ensuring that litigants do not exploit procedural laws to their advantage.
Bottom Line:
An aggrieved party cannot pursue two parallel remedies simultaneously against the same judgment or order, as this constitutes an abuse of the process of law and court.
Statutory provision(s):
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 47
Charan Singh Khangarot v. Raghunath Singh, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2861752
