|
Case-1-It is not permissible for the parties to reopen the concluded judgments of the court as it would have far reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice-Union of India and Others Vs. Major S. P. Sharma and Others
In a country governed by the rule of law, finality of judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to the finality of the judgment and it is not permissible for the parties to reopen the concluded judgments of the court as it would not only tantamount to merely an abuse of the process of the court but would have far reaching adverse affect on the administration of justice. It would also nullify the doctrine of stare decisis a well established valuable principle of precedent which cannot be departed from unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. The judgments of the court and particularly the Apex Court of a country cannot and should not be unsettled lightly.
Emphasis Supplied
Case-2-Decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned-Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 1980 SC 1762
"6. It is wise to remember that fatal flaws silenced by earlier rulings cannot survive after death because a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned'".
Emphasis Supplied
Case-3-Once an order attains its finality, that is, it is not challenged in appeal or by way of any procedure established in law, it matters little whether such order was erroneous and bad in law-Indu Bhusan Jana Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 2009 Cal 24; (2009) 1 CHN 27
17. On an analysis of the above judgement on the Doctrine of Finality one concludes that the above Doctrine is based on two age-old principles, namely, interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation and the other principle is nemo debet bis vexari, si constat curiae quod sit pro una et eadem causa meaning there by that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears to the court that it is for one and the same cause. It is clear that once an order attains its finality, that is, it is not challenged in appeal or by way of any procedure established in law, it matters little whether such order was erroneous and bad in law. This order inter se the parties becomes final and is not open to challenge by either of the parties on a subsequent occasion. The only exceptions to the Doctrine of Finality are that the finding of the earlier order was obtained by fraud or the court lacked jurisdiction to pass the order.
Emphasis Supplied
Case-4-In the absence of such a principle great oppression might result under the colour and pretence of law in as much as there will be no end of litigation and a rich and malicious litigant will succeed in infinitely vexing his opponent by repetitive suits and actions. This may compel the weaker party to relinquish his right-M.Nagabhushana vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 2 February, 2011
15. That principle of finality of litigation is based on high principle of public policy. In the absence of such a principle great oppression might result under the colour and pretence of law in as much as there will be no end of litigation and a rich and malicious litigant will succeed in infinitely vexing his opponent by repetitive suits and actions. This may compel the weaker party to relinquish his right. The doctrine of Res Judicata has been evolved to prevent such an anarchy. That is why it is perceived that the plea of Res Judicata is not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle which sustains the Rule of Law in ensuring finality in litigation. This principle seeks to promote honesty and a fair administration of justice and to prevent abuse in the matter of accessing Court for agitating on issues which have become final between the parties.
Emphasis Supplied
Case-5-Many people arrange their affairs and large number of transactions also take place on the faith of the correctness of the view taken- Maganlal Chhaganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR 1974 SC 2009
Many people arrange their affairs and large number of transactions also take place on the faith of the correctness of the view taken by this Court. It would create uncertainty, instability and confusion if the law propounded by this Court on the basis of which numerous cases have been decided and many transactions have taken place is held to be not the correct law.
Emphasis Supplied
Case-6-Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2011) 8 SCC 161 [Coram: Dr. Dalveer Bhandari and H.L. Dattu, JJ
103. The maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium says that it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation after a long hierarchy of appeals. At some stage, it is necessary to put a quietus. It is rare that in an adversarial system, despite the Judges of the highest court doing their best, one or more parties may remain unsatisfied with the most correct decision. Opening door for a further appeal could be opening a floodgate which will cause more wrongs in the society at large at the cost of rights.
Emphasis Supplied
By CA Dr. Arpit Haldia |
Email: gstonlineinfo@gmail.com |