RES JUDICATA

('Res' in Latin means thing a 'Judicata' means already decided.)

Ancient Concept : ‘If a person though defeated at law sue again he should be answered, “You
were defeated formerly”. This is called the plea of former judgment.’ (See the Mitakshara
Vyavahara)

“one suit and one decision is enough for any single dispute”

Section 11 CPC embodies the doctrine of res judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of judgment
as to the points decided earlier of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, in every subsequent suit
between the same parties. When a matter is finally decided by a competent court, no party can be
permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation.

Das Gupta J, in Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Deb, has explained the concept of Res
Judicata in the following words:
The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. When
a matter—whether on a question of fact or a question of law—has been decided between two
parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a
higher court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed
in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again.

Object of Res Judicata (Daryao v. State of UP)

The doctrine of res judicata is based on three maxims :
1. nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa : no man should be vexed twice for the same
cause;
2. interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium : it is in the interest of the State that there should be an
end to a litigation; and
3. res judicata pro veritate accipitur : a judicial decision must be accepted as correct.

The doctrine of res judicata is the combined result of public policy reflected in maxims (2) and
(3) and private justice expressed in maxim (1); and they apply to all judicial proceedings whether
civil or criminal. Further in Lal Chand v. Radhakrishnan, it was observed that the principle of res
judicata is based on justice, equity and good conscience.

WHETHER SECTION 11 EXHAUSTIVE?

Untwalia J in Workmen v. Cochin Port Trust, the learned judge declared: It is well-known
that the doctrine of res judicata is codified in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure but it is
not exhaustive. Section 11 generally comes into play in relation to civil suits. But apart from the
codified law the doctrine of res judicata or the principle of res judicata has been applied since
long in various other kinds of proceedings and situations by Courts in England, India and other
countries.

Bombay Gas Co. v. Jagannath Pandurang, 1975 : Doctrine of Res Judicata is a wholesome
one which is applicable not merely to matters governed by the provisions of CPC but to all
litigation
The principles of res judicata are quite wide and general in application. It has been accepted by
all civilized system of Jurisprudence. They are founded on a sound public policy and are of
universal application (Nagabhushan v. State of Karnatka)

Halsbury’s Laws of England : Halsbury also adds that the doctrine applies equally in all courts.

Daryao v. State of U.P., Gajendragadkar J (as he then was) rightly placed the doctrine of res
judicata on a high pedestal treating it as a part of the rule of law. He proclaimed: The binding
character of judgments pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction is itself an essential part
of the rule of law, and the rule of law obviously is the basis of the administration of justice on
which the Constitution lays so much emphasis.

RES JUDICATA AND WRIT PETITIONS

 Decisions in writ proceedings under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution operate as res
judicata in subsequent regular suits on the same matters in controversy between the same
parties; there is no reason to give limited effect to the principle of the finality of decisions
after full contest.

 If a writ petition filed by a party is considered on merits as a contested matter and is

dismissed, the decision thus pronounced would continue to bind the parties unless it is
otherwise modified or reversed in appeal or in other appropriate proceedings permissible
under the Constitution. It would not be open to a party to ignore the said judgment and
again move the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Article 32 on
the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs.(Daryao v. State of
UP)

 M.S.M. Sharma v. Krishna Sinha, for the first time, the Supreme Court held that the
general principle of res judicata applies even to writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India

CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA AND WRIT PETITION

Constructive res judicata is an artificial form of res judicata. It provides that if a plea could have
been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and his opponent, he should not be permitted
to take that plea against the same party in a subsequent proceeding with reference to the same
subject matter. The principle of constructive res judicata also applies to writ petitions. (Devilal
Modi v. STO)

The rule of constructive res judicata however does not apply to a writ of habeas corpus.

DISMISSAL IN LIMINE
Sometimes a peculiar situation arises. A petition may be dismissed by the Court in limine
without admitting it for final hearing. The question may arises whether such a dismissal of
petition operate as res-judicata.
• If the order is on merits, it would be a bar. However, if the order shows that the dismissal
was for the reason that the petition was guilty of laches or that he had an alternative
remedy it would not bar a second petition to the SC under Art. 32 or a HC under Art. 226.
(B Prabhakar Rao v. State of AP)
• Similarly if the petition under Art. 136 has been dismissed in limine by the Supreme
Court by a non speaking order it will not preclude the party from seeking same relief
under Art. 226 from the High Court on identical grounds. (Workmen v. Cochin Port
Trust)