Litigants cannot withhold claims or issues only to raise them in subsequent litigation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that piecemeal litigation with issues deliberately fragmented across separate proceedings, aimed at gaining unfair advantage, amounts to abuse of process of law [Celir LLP v Sumathi Prasad Bafna and Ors].A party cannot deliberately withhold certain claims or issues in certain proceedings to raise them in subsequent litigation, a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said."Where a plea or issue was raised in earlier proceedings but later abandoned it is deemed waived and cannot be relitigated in subsequent. Allowing such pleas to be resurrected in later cases would not only undermine the finality of judgments but also incentivize strategic behaviour, where parties could withdraw claims in one case with the intention of reintroducing them later. proceedings. Abandonment signifies acquiescence, barring its reconsideration in subsequent litigation. This ensures that judicial processes are not misused for tactical advantage and that litigants are held accountable for their procedural choices. Parties must litigate diligently and in good faith, presenting their entire case at the earliest opportunity," the judgment said..The Court made the observation while disposing of a contempt of court petition related to a case on auction of a mortgaged property by Union Bank of India..It added that parties cannot be allowed to exploit procedural loopholes and approach different fora to revisit the same matters they had deliberately chosen not to pursue earlier."Piecemeal litigation where issues are deliberately fragmented across separate proceedings to gain an unfair advantage is in itself a facet of abuse of process of law and would also fall foul of this principle. Merely because one proceeding initiated by a party differs in some aspects from another proceeding or happens to be before a different forum, will not make the subsequent proceeding distinct in nature from the former, if the underlying subject matter or the seminal issues involved remains substantially similar to each other or connected to the earlier subject matter by a certain degree," the Court said..[Read Judgment]