Daryao v State of Uttar Pradesh

• The petitioners were tenants whose ejectment had been ordered under the U.P. Tenancy Act
• They filed writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 challenging the ejectment orders on constitutional grounds
• The High Court heard the petitions on merits and dismissed them
• The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 raising substantially the same constitutional grounds
• The State contended that the Supreme Court petition was barred by res judicata

1. Whether the principle of res judicata applies to writ proceedings under Articles 226 and 32.
2. Whether a writ petition dismissed on merits by a High Court bars a subsequent petition under Article 32.

• The principle of res judicata is of universal application and is not confined to suits under CPC
• The binding character of judgments pronounced by competent courts is an essential part of the rule of law
• Where a High Court hears and decides a writ petition on merits, its decision operates as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the same parties on the same grounds
• A petition under Article 32 raising the same grounds is barred
• Distinction: A writ petition dismissed merely on preliminary objections (laches, locus, alternative remedy) without deciding the merits does NOT create res judicata on the substantive constitutional question

Res judicata applies to writ proceedings. A writ petition dismissed on merits by a High Court under Article 226 bars a subsequent petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the same grounds between the same parties. The doctrine serves the rule of law by preventing endless relitigation of settled matters.