1) you can move for the dismissal of the fifth application based on the principle of Res Judicata and for wasting court time, potentially resulting in costs/fines against the petitioner. 

2)  You should file an application under Section 151 (Inherent Powers of the Court) arguing that the petitioner is abusing the court process to harass you by repeatedly filing the same, rejected request (Dharna 16(6)).

3) The court has the authority to impose compensatory costs for false or vexatious claims/claims, especially after the matter has already been settled by the High Court of Uttarakhand. 

File  reply to the 5th application highlighting the previous four rejections by the CJ SD, CJ ADGC, High Court, and previous CJ JD orders.

You have sought legal advice regarding repeated applications filed by the opposite party seeking bank records of a joint savings account held in the names of your late mother and yourself, where the mode of operation was “either or survivor.” After the demise of your mother, you continued operating the account and eventually closed it. Subsequently, another legal heir has repeatedly approached various courts seeking disclosure of the bank records by filing applications under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relying on the same provision and raising the same issue between the same parties.

From the facts you have described, the opposite party has already filed similar applications before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), the Additional District Government Counsel, the High Court of Uttarakhand, and again before the Civil Judge (Junior Division). Each of these applications appears to have been rejected. Despite this, the same party has again approached the Civil Judge (Junior Division) with an identical request under the same provision.

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, courts are empowered to prevent repeated litigation on the same issue once it has already been decided. The principle governing such situations is the doctrine of res judicata, embodied in Section 11 of the Code. This doctrine provides that when a matter has already been directly and substantially in issue between the same parties and has been finally decided by a competent court, the same issue cannot be reopened again in subsequent proceedings. The purpose of this principle is to ensure finality in litigation and to prevent abuse of the judicial process.

In addition to the principle of res judicata, courts also have inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to prevent misuse of the court’s process. If a party repeatedly files identical applications on the same grounds after earlier rejection, the court may treat such conduct as an abuse of process. In such circumstances, the court may dismiss the application outright and may also impose costs on the party who is repeatedly filing frivolous or repetitive applications.

Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently held that litigants cannot repeatedly approach courts with the same claim after it has been rejected. The Supreme Court has emphasized that repeated litigation on the same issue amounts to abuse of judicial process and that courts should impose costs or penalties in appropriate cases to discourage such conduct.

In your situation, the appropriate course of action is to bring to the notice of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) the complete history of the matter, including copies of the earlier orders passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), the Additional District authorities, and the High Court rejecting the same request. Your advocate should specifically argue that the present application raises the same issue between the same parties and is therefore barred by the principle of res judicata and constitutes an abuse of the court’s process.

You may also request the court to dismiss the application with exemplary costs, pointing out that the opposite party is repeatedly attempting to reopen a matter that has already been decided by multiple courts. Courts have the authority to impose costs when they find that a party is misusing judicial proceedings to harass another party or to unnecessarily prolong litigation.

In summary, repeated applications raising the same issue after earlier rejection can legally be challenged on the grounds of res judicata and abuse of process under the Code of Civil Procedure. By presenting the previous orders and the procedural history before the court, you can seek dismissal of the latest application and request the court to impose costs to prevent further misuse of the legal process.

Repeatedly filing the same application on the same issue between the same parties after it has already been rejected can be objected to in civil proceedings.

Under Section 11 CPC (Res Judicata):

Once a court has finally decided an issue, the same parties cannot raise the same issue again in another proceeding.

This principle also applies to interlocutory applications decided earlier in the same case (called constructive res judicata).

Since you stated that the same request under Section 16(6) for bank records was rejected four times by CJSD, CJADGC, High Court Uttarakhand and CJJD, then filing the same application again before the same court is generally not maintainable.

You can object stating that it is barred by law of res judicata / constructive res judicata.

Supreme Court and High Courts have clearly ruled that filing repeated applications on the same issue between the same parties after rejection is an abuse of the process of court, and courts can dismiss such applications and impose costs.

Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali

Citation: AIR 1974 SC 749

The Supreme Court explained the doctrine of Res Judicata under Section 11 CPC and held that:

Once an issue is decided between the same parties, it cannot be re-agitated again in another proceeding.

Courts must look at the substance of the issue, not technical form, to prevent repetitive litigation.

Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi

The Supreme Court held:

Res judicata also applies to different stages of the same proceedings.

Once a matter is decided at one stage, it cannot be reopened at a later stage in the same case.

This ruling is frequently used when someone files repeated interlocutory applications.

Supreme Court – Abuse of Court Process

K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi

The Court held:

Re-litigation of the same issue again and again is a clear abuse of the process of court.

Courts can dismiss such proceedings with exemplary costs.

You can file an objection / counter saying:

The petitioner filed the same application under Section 16(6) several times.

It was already rejected by multiple courts (CJSD, ADGC, High Court etc.).

The new application is barred by Res Judicata (Section 11 CPC).

It is a clear abuse of process under Section 151 CPC.

Request the court to:

Dismiss the application

Impose exemplary costs under Section 35A CPC.

Dear client,

Repeating the same type of application or request, along the same lines, is also a type of “abuse” of the judicial process and should meet with appropriate punitive sanction such as being declared “vexatious” in the manner laid out at Section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is subject to penalties and court ordered compensation for costs associated with pursuing similar claims on an ongoing basis even when previous decisions by judges – including those at the highest levels of the judicial system – were against the person making such claims. Additionally, any time there are ongoing transactions between two parties where one party has already pursued similar types of claims through multiple layers of the caste system, that person is engaging in an “abuses of process.” The Supreme Court of India has also ruled in various cases that parties continue to file court documents on the same issues over and over without resolution constitute abuse of the legal process; e.g., (K.K. Modi Vs. K.K. Modi 1998). Consequently, the Civil Judge (Dr) can make an order denying the use of the legal system for purposes of abuse (i.e. without justification); impose compensatory costs associated with representational counsel; and, provide for any other punitive sanctions available under local law with respect to engaged in methodical abuse or misuse of the provided mechanism provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

If you have any query please feel free to contact us.

Its resjudicata and again new proceedings on same ground can’t be initiated 

Your query essentially concerns repeated filing of the same application under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 after it has already been rejected by courts multiple times. Indian procedural law does contain principles to prevent such repeated litigation.

I will explain the legal position step-wise.

1. Repeated applications on the same issue are generally not permitted

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, courts apply the principle of finality of judicial decisions. Once a court has decided a particular issue between the same parties, the same matter ordinarily cannot be re-agitated repeatedly.

This principle is reflected in Section 11 CPC (Res Judicata). Even though Section 11 technically applies to suits, courts often apply the same principle to applications within a case, meaning that an issue already decided should not be reopened repeatedly by filing identical applications.

If the petitioner is filing the same request again and again before the same court after rejection, the court may refuse to entertain it.

2. Abuse of the process of court

Repeated filing of identical applications after they have already been rejected by different courts may amount to abuse of the process of court.

Courts in India have inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to prevent misuse of judicial process and to maintain the dignity of proceedings.

If the judge finds that the petitioner is deliberately repeating the same application despite earlier rejections, the court can:

• dismiss the application,
• impose costs or monetary penalty, or
• restrict further similar applications.

3. Power to impose costs

The CPC allows courts to impose costs when litigation is frivolous or unnecessary. Relevant provisions include:

• Section 35 CPC – general costs of litigation.
• Section 35A CPC – compensatory costs for false or vexatious claims.
• Section 151 CPC – inherent power to impose costs to prevent abuse.

If the petitioner is repeatedly filing the same application after rejection by several courts, the opposite party may request the court to impose exemplary costs.

4. Effect of earlier orders of higher courts

If a matter has already been considered and rejected by a higher court such as the High Court, the lower court normally cannot reconsider the same request unless:

• there are new facts, or
• the higher court has specifically permitted reconsideration.

Ignoring earlier binding orders may itself be legally incorrect.

5. What you can do in the present situation

You may raise the following objections before the Civil Judge:

• The application is barred by principles similar to res judicata.
• The petitioner is misusing the court process by filing repeated identical applications.
• The issue has already been decided multiple times by competent courts.
• The application should be dismissed with costs.

You may also specifically request the court to impose exemplary costs to discourage further repetitive applications.

6. Judicial precedents

Indian courts have repeatedly held that re-litigation of the same issue is not permissible. The principle was emphasized by the Supreme Court in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, where the Court held that repeated proceedings on the same cause constitute abuse of the judicial process and may justify dismissal with costs.

Courts have also held that once a matter is decided, parties cannot keep filing applications in different forums to obtain a different result.

Conclusion

If the petitioner is repeatedly filing the same request under the CPC after it has been rejected by several courts, you can request the court to dismiss the application on the ground of abuse of process and principles of res judicata, and also seek imposition of costs under Sections 35, 35A, and 151 of the CPC. Courts have the authority to prevent such repetitive litigation and penalize vexatious conduct.