Devi Lal Modi v. STO — Constructive Res Judicata & Successive Writ Petitions

Simple rule: Raise all your grounds the first time. The Supreme Court said constructive res judicata stops parties from filing new writs on the same order by adding fresh points later. It is about finality and public policy.

1. Does constructive res judicata bar a second writ petition attacking the same order with new grounds?
2. Should courts allow serial writs if the first one failed and the party later finds fresh arguments?

• Constructive res judicata: Grounds that could and should have been taken earlier are treated as already decided.
• Public policy: Litigation must end; repeat challenges waste time and harass the other side.

Held: The second writ petition was barred by constructive res judicata. If the rule were not applied, a party could file endless writs by adding one or two new points each time—contrary to public policy. Appeal dismissed.

• In writ jurisdiction, the principle of constructive res judicata applies.
• Grounds available earlier but not urged are treated as already decided against the party.

This judgment guards against piecemeal litigation. It preserves finality and judicial efficiency, especially in tax and administrative matters.

• File a complete writ: include all available grounds.
• Second writ on the same order with new grounds is barred.
• The rule is rooted in public policy and finality.

Mnemonic: “ALL AT ONCE — OR ALL IS GONE.”

1. Audit: List every arguable ground.
2. Assert: Plead them in the first writ.
3. Avoid: Don’t plan a second writ—CRJ will bar it.

Constructive Res Judicata

A bar against raising in later proceedings what should have been raised earlier.

Writ Petition

A constitutional remedy for quick judicial review of state action.

Public Policy

Courts’ interest in preventing endless, repetitive litigation.