JUDICIAL INTERPRTATION ON DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

NAME OF FACULTY : DR. ADHARA DESHPANDE

DR. BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW

(MAIN BRANCH)

SUBMITTED BY : MR. PRASHANT TRIPATHI (City Branch)

SUBJECT : Interpretation of statute

Abstract- There should be the finality of litigation as a principle of jurisprudence. It is apparent that
the Res Judicata, by itself, is not a technical doctrine, but it is a fundamental principle that goes on par
with the Rule of Law, which is part of the basic structure. The object is not achieved if the litigation is not
finalized and put to an end. This object is, the decision of disputes or to put an end to every litigation. But
if there is no finality to it, the dispute cannot have said to be decided at all. The principle is also founded
on equity, justice, and a good conscience which requires that a party that has once succeeded on an issue
should not be permitted to be harassed if the same issue is involved to avoid the multiplicity of
proceedings. This principle is led down in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Keywords- Res Judicata, Jurisdiction, Competent Authority

a) Introduction
In law, there is a remedy for breach of every right. The sufferer of breach of right has a remedy in the
court by filing suit. But, under the civil procedure code, few suits are restricted by the doctrine of res sub
judice and res judicata. Res judicata means judgment already pronounced by the court. The issue is not
permitted by the court if it is already decided by the court and there is no second chance to file a suit. Res
judicata followed the civil procedure and came through English common law. Under section 11 of the
CPC, Res judicata is given. None of the parties can file a suit in the court for the same cause of action
which is already pronounced by the court following the doctrine of res judicata considering the principle
of public policy. In administrative law, the role of res judicata is very important because it deals with the
work of the judiciary in finding the case. If the condition that the same parties with the same issue filed
the petition more than once then the concept of resjudicata applies. One more important thing is that filing
of suit is with the same court or any other court in the country.
According to justice Campbell, “justice is ensured when a case is fairly tried and all litigations about the
case are to be concluded”, the former associate justice of the United State Conclusiveness is the main
principle of res judicata. The resultant effect of the first judgment is preserved by the doctrine of res
judicata. To avoid the circumstances of the multiplicity of the suit. The principle of res judicata should be
followed because there are so many cases pending before the court. Repetition of litigation can be avoided
by the concept of res judicata. To both civil and criminal law, The doctrine of res judicata applied
b) Main Text (Law judicial/ juristic opinions)

Meaning of Res Judicata

Together it means “a matter adjudged”. Res means “subject matter” and judicata means

“adjudged” or decided.

If between the same parties issue has been judged by the court and has been pronounced

by another court.

Example of Res Judicata

• B is the landlord of A. Due to non-payment of rent B files suit against A. The reason behind filing a suit

is that the area which was mentioned in the lease is not the actual area of use for the A . physically it is

less than the mentioned area so ‘B’ pleaded to reduce the rent on the ground of a lesser area. A ‘s plea

was rejected because the area mentioned in the lease is greater than the mentioned area in the lease. It

was found by the court that the actual area is greater than shown in the lease. As the area was excess as

shown in the lease the doctrine of res judicata will not be applied.

• In a case, ‘A’ new lawsuit was filed in which the defendants requested that the Court dismiss the
lawsuit with a plea of res judicata. All because of fraud previous claim was dismissed, and he was
barred from bringing a claim of res judicata The Court said that the Only by evidence defense of res
judicata must be proved.
Rule of conclusiveness

Section 11 of the CPC rule of conclusiveness is derived from these legal maxims.

• “Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa”

This means no person should be tortured or stressed or punished two times for the same
cause of action. If the judgment is so pronounced by the court and anyone is convicted or
punished to avoid the mental harassment and punishment for the same cause of action. This
principle of resjudicata has to be followed.

• “Interest republicae ut sit finis litium”

Litigation should be put to an end in the interest of the state. A suit must not continue indefinitely. It must be
brought to an end. The conclusion of a judicial proceeding is not only in the interest of litigants but also in the
interest of the state. Endless proceedings would cause harassment and inconvenience to the parties and also
would lead to the accumulation of cases.

• “Res judicata pro veritate occipitur”

This maxim says that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct. A competent court's decision must be
considered right and lawful on the issues involved therein. Therefore the court cannot be asked to re-
determine those issues in subsequent suits between the same parties. Such issues cannot be reopened for
decision afresh. The judgment or decision of the court is deemed to be final and conclusive. It is also
supposed to be correct. However, such finality and correctness are about the issue determined between the
parties to suit. Therefore the same Parties cannot agitate the same issue in future litigation between them.
Under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure code the essentials conditions are ;

• Presence of 2 suits – The following suit which is instituted and the Previous suit has already been decided
• There should be the same parties or the same representatives in both the suits.
• The issue or the subject matter of the following suit should be the same as the issue dealt with in the former
suit.
• The parties in both suits must have litigated under the same title.[9]
• The order of the former suit should have been delivered by a court with competent jurisdiction.
• In the former suit, the parties must have been allowed to be heard and the case must have been finally
decided between the parties.[10]

Constructive Res Judicata

Constructive res judicata is formed as the duplicate of res judicata. The constructive res judicata is very well
explained in Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is in the interest of public policy this
rule is considered. Even though Party had an opportunity to raise a plea in the former suit but they did not raise
the plea, and later if they file such a plea in their following suit, then also the rule of res judicata applies to the
following suit, this is known as the concept of constructive res judicata.

Example: -If X being the legal heir of Z files a suit against Y for entitlement of property and the suit is
dismissed. Based on the ground of adverse possession A can not claim the same property in the following suit.
This plea should have been raised in his former suit, therefore by the rule of constructive res judicata, he is
barred. Similarly, if a defendant fails to raise all the objections in the previous suit will not be entertained to
raise those objections in his following suit.

In the case of the state of Uttar Pradesh v Nawab Hussain, M filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging
the order of dismissal. M was a subinspector and was dismissed from the service of D.I.G.He believed that he
did not get a proper opportunity of being heard before passing the order. His petition was dismissed because the
argument was not considered by the court. On the ground that he was appointed by I.G.P. he again filed a
petition and had no power to dismiss him. As per the defendant’s argument suit was barred by constructive res
judicata and not as per the doctrine of res judicata. However, the trial court and High Court held that suit was
not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The suit was barred by the constructive res judicata. The supreme
court held that as the plea was within the knowledge of the plaintiff, M, and this point he could have raised in
his earlier suit.
Res judicata and Writ petitions

The General principle of res judicata applies even to writ petitions filed under Article 226 or Article 32 of the
Indian Constitution The Habeas corpus is an exception to this rule. The following petition is also bared if a
petition is barred in the previous suit. constructive res judicata has an application in the writ petition that is the
main question The Supreme Court held that the constructive res judicata also applies to writs. Following writ
petition filed with the same relief by the same parties is barred by res judicata. Res judicata is also taken into
consideration when decisions are made between the parties of the writ petitions.

Res judicata and Appeals

The process of appeal is not restricted by res judicata, to the principle of res judicata, this is one of the main
criticism given. Appealing up and coming down in the hierarchy of courts is considered an extension of the
same lawsuit. If the judgment is given it is usually challenged by appeals and a new trial is not initiated. It is
considered a separate case if the right to appeal is exhausted, and res judicata will apply in that situation. When
final judgment on the same issue is pronounced by another competent court, And an appeal is also pending in a
court, then it operates as res judicata. Res judicata can be applied in a subsequent appeal If a former appeal has
been rejected as time-barred.

Exceptions to res judicata

Based on the competence of the previous court using collateral attack is the exception to res judicata. Before
rejecting the case proper reasoning should have to be given by the court using the doctrine of resjudicata. Res
judicata will not apply if special leave petitions are dismissed without adjudication. PIL strictly does not fall
under the principle of res judicata. Issuing of writs is allowed to the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the
High Court is vested with some power regarding writs under Article 226. If the fresh grounds are presented in
the following petition in the habeas corpus case res judicata does not apply.

Res judicata will not be considered in the following suit if the previous suit has been obtained by fraud.
Procurement of judgment by fraud and incompetency of court is mentioned in Section 44 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. The court held that with ill intention if a guardian of the minor has filed the previous case
in collusion with the defendant, then it will consider fraud as per Section 44 and res judicata does not apply in
the following suit. Mere negligence in the previous suit does not act as an exception to the principle of res
judicata.

In the subsequent suit, the interlocutory order for immediate relief can be changed.so, it will not be barred by
res judicata.

The principle of res judicata has no application in taxation cases. Liability arises for tax is different in respective
years so they are independent of each other The tax assessment for each year applies to that particular year only
and in following years it has no governance.

If the court does not have jurisdiction of passing an order in the previous suit then in the following suit the
principle of res judicata will not apply. Without jurisdiction and illegal initiation of proceedings res judicata will
not apply.
Res sub judice – Stay of Suit

In case of appeal, the matter is not considered as res judicata but it will consider as res subjidice. Unless and
until the appeal is not heard and the matter therein not decided it can not be said as res judicata.
Same parties with the same issues filed more than one case in different court then the principle of “stay of suit”
is applied. The simultaneous happening of two litigations is prevented by this doctrine of res sub judice with the
same cause of action by two courts which has concurrent jurisdiction.

To stay a suit procedure section 151 empowers the civil courts to ensure justice when section 10 does not
apply.[34]
Further proceedings of the suit shall have to stop through the stay of suit to avoid contradiction in the decision
of two different courts and this is the main objective of this doctrine. In the case of an institution of a suit this
doctrine does not applies but in the case of a trial of suit this doctrine is applied. Section 10 can be waived
because it is just a procedure of rule. once the waiver of right is taken by the parties validity of the following
proceedings cannot be challenged by them and can not be prevented by the doctrine of res sub judice therefore
in a stayed suit court nay pass interim orders.

The main difference between res sub judice and res judicata:

• Res sub judice is given in Section 10 and res judicata is given in section 11
• when the matter is pending in the court or in the process of judicial inquiry res sub judice deals with it. But if
the matter has already been adjudicated, res judicata deals with it.
• While res judicata bars the following suite which has the same matter of issue as the previous suit.
According to the principle of res subjudice, the stay is granted if the same issue in the previous suit is filed in
later.
• When the same dispute arises in the second trial res judicata prevents it but res sub judice prevents two
parallel proceedings of the same dispute but
 c) Cases-History to Present/Most relevant first

Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The doctrine of res judicata is of widespread application was established in the historical case of Daryao v. State
of Uttar Pradesh. The broader concept in the doctrine of res judicata has been given by The Supreme Court of
India. In this case, a writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution in the
Allahabad High Court. But the court dismissed the suit. under Article 32 of the Constitution the independent
petitions have been filed by them in the Supreme Court. This petition was challenged by the defendant on the
ground that the judgment pronounced by the High Court operated as res judicata to a petition filed by the defendant
under Article 32.

The court held that the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution considers being res judicata. If a petition is
filed by the petitioner in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and it is dismissed based on merits,
it would be considered as res judicata under Article 32 of the Constitution to bar a similar petition in the Supreme
Court.

Devilal Modi vs. Sales Tax Officer

In the leading case of Devilal Modi vs. STO, the validity of an order of assessment under Article 226 was
challenged by the “B”. Based on merits the petition was dismissed. Based on merit Supreme Court also dismissed
the appeal that was made against the order. Against the same order of assessment, B filed another writ petition in
the same High Court again. This time was by the High Court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court held that
the petition was barred by the principle of res judicata.

Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh

In the case of Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh, a strange problem arose. A civil suit has been filed by “A”, and an
argument regarding the arbitration of the Court was taken by B. The plaint was returned by sustaining the
objection to the presentation. when the revenue court was approached by A it did not have jurisdiction so the
petition was returned by him. A suit was filed by A in civil court once again. According to B’s argument, the
principle of res judicata applies and the suit was barred as per the doctrine of res judicata.
d) Conclusion

Res judicata is a wide concept. It applies to many areas of society. In our legal system res judicata plays
an important role and Supreme Court shows this through many of its judgments. Res judicata plays a
significant role in controlling and maintaining the re-litigation process. The court can consider the
principle of res judicata if the court finds that the same parties with the same issues have already been
decided in the previous court by applying the rule of section 11.

e) Suggestions

The principle of res judicata is a blessing for those who feel that litigation is a time-consuming activity.
Because it avoids duplication of work done by the court thereby reducing the mental harassment of the
justice seeker. This would avoid the multiplicity of cases and pile-up of cases. The grievances are also
resolved quickly and getting help in finalizing the case as early as possible. The cases with the same
subject matter and contradictory parts of judgment will be minimized.
But author finds it difficult for the layman to know such technical principle of res judicata. It has also
come to the notice of the author of this article that most of layman does not know the jurisdiction of the
court this will also lead to the cumbersome and time-consuming litigation process. In the legal system,
there is the phrase “justice delay is justice denied” but the author feels that this is only a bookish thing as
far as awareness is concerned there is no means to aware people about the basic process of the litigation
to avoid the duplication and time of the court as well as justice seeker. Though the legal aid is provided
to the haves not but this would not suffice the very object of timely justice to the justice seeker.

f) Bibliographyphy(book, journals/websites, list of cases)

1. BLOG.IPLEADERSIN
2. LEX FORTI.COM
3. INTERPRETTION OF STATUTES BY B.N. MATHUR