Aggrieved Party Cannot Pursue Two Parallel Remedies Against The Same Judgment Simultaneously, Amounts To Abuse Of Judicial Process: Rajasthan High Court
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, dismissed a civil revision petition arising from a dispute over recovery of dues under a sale deed executed by a limited liability partnership firm and its partners. While dismissing the petition, the court held that an aggrieved party cannot simultaneously pursue two parallel remedies against the same judgment, as doing so amounts to an abuse of judicial process. The court observed that once a party elects to pursue a particular remedy, such as a statutory appeal, that party is bound by that choice and cannot invoke a separate remedy at the same time for the same cause.
The matter arose from execution proceedings initiated on the basis of a decree dated 08.01.2025. The decree was passed in a summary suit filed by the respondent against a limited liability partnership firm and its partners for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,54,12,000/- arising out of a sale deed executed on 26.08.2022. The petitioner, one of the partners, objected to the execution proceedings under Section 47 CPC, contending that he had retired from the firm on 09.11.2022 and was not a signatory to the sale deed. He argued that liability under Section 27 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 was restricted to the partner responsible for the firm’s obligations.
The respondents opposed the objections, submitting that the sale deed bore the petitioner’s signatures and that cheques issued in furtherance of the transaction included one signed by the petitioner’s wife, which was dishonoured. They argued that the petitioner remained liable under Section 30 of the LLP Act. It was further submitted that the petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal against the decree, and therefore could not simultaneously pursue objections under Section 47 CPC.
The Court recorded: “Perusal of the record indicates that a summary suit under Order 37 CPC was submitted by the respondent against the petitioner along with proforma respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,54,12,000/- on the basis of a sale deed executed by the petitioner and the proforma respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in his favour, and the same has been decreed by the Executing Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2025.”
The Court stated: “As per the averments made in Para 8 of the instant revision petition, the petitioner along with other proforma respondents has already approached this Court by way of filing a statutory appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2025 and at the same time the petitioner has filed objections under Section 47 CPC before the Executing Court against the self same impugned judgment.”
The Court observed: “It is settled proposition of law that an aggrieved party cannot be allowed to avail two parallel remedies at the same time against the self same order/judgment passed against him. By availing two parallel remedies, the petitioner intends to sail in two boats and the same cannot be permitted.”
The Court further recorded: “One cannot pursue two parallel remedies against the self same judgment at the same time, as this will be deemed to be an abuse of the process of law and Court. Though multiple remedies might technically exist and selecting one remedy often bars the initiation of another remedy simultaneously. Such practice cannot be appreciated, rather it is liable to be deprecated.”
The Court stated: “Once a party chooses to pursue one remedy (eg. appeal), he/she is bound by it and cannot switch over to another if he/she fails to get any relief in the first remedy. Essentially a litigant must choose his/her path and he/she cannot be allowed to ‘hedge his bets’ by way of pursuing two parallel remedies simultaneously for espousing the same cause.”
The Court observed: “This Court is of the considered view that as a general principle where two remedies are available under law, one of them should not be taken as operating in derogation of the other. If a party has elected to pursue a particular remedy, he is bound by it and cannot be allowed to pursue another remedy simultaneously.”
The Court noted: “Instant matter is partly based on the Latin maxim which forms the foundational principle of Roman Jurisprudence, i.e. ‘Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa’ which translates to ‘no man should be vexed twice for the same cause’, meaning thereby that one cannot be allowed to avail two parallel remedies for the same matter at the same time.”
The Court directed: “Since the petitioner has already availed the parallel remedy of filing statutory appeal against the self same impugned judgment and decree dated 08.01.2025 before this Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, under these circumstances, the objection submitted by the petitioner under Section 47 CPC was not maintainable before the Executing Court and the revision petition against the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Executing Court is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.”
“However, the petitioner would be at liberty to agitate all the grounds, which have been taken by him before this Court in the revision petition, in the statutory appeal submitted by him before this Court while assailing the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2025 along with other partners/proforma respondent before this Court. The instant revision petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Madhusudan Singh Rajpurohit
For the Respondents: Mr. M.M. Ranjan – Sr. Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Singh and Mr. Devashish Pancholi
Case Title: Charan Singh Khangarot v. Raghunath Singh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:7511]
Case Number: S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 69/2026
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
