Brief history and origin of Res Judicata

The concept of res judicata has evolved from the English

Common Law System. The Common Law system has been
derived from the overriding concept of judicial consistency.
Res judicata took its place first in the Code of Civil Procedure
from Common Law and then into the Indian Legal System. If
either of the parties in a case approaches the same court for
the judgment of the same issue then the suit will be struck by
the doctrine of res judicata. Res judicata plays a role in
administrative law as well. It helps to administer how
efficiently the Judiciary works and disposes of the case. The
doctrine of res judicata becomes applicable where there is
more than one petition filed in the same or in some other court
of India with the same parties and same facts. The parties
involved in a case may file the same suit again just to harass
the reputation of the opposite party and may do to get
compensation twice. So to prevent such overloads and extra
cases, the doctrine of res judicata plays a major role and
importance in the Code of Civil Procedure.

Earlier res judicata was termed as Purva Nyaya or former

judgment by the Hindu lawyers and Muslim jurists according
to ancient Hindu Law. The countries of the Commonwealth
and the European Continent have accepted that once the
matter has been brought to trial once, it must not be tried
again. The principle of res judicata is originated from the
Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It addresses the
finality of judgments in a civil jury trial. Once a court has
rendered a verdict in a civil trial, it cannot be changed by
another court except there are very specific conditions.

Res Judicata meaning

Res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or
decided and together it means “a matter adjudged”.

In simpler words, the thing has been judged by the court, the
issue before a court has already been decided by another court
and between the same parties. Hence, the court will dismiss
the case as it has been decided by another court. Res judicata
applies to both civil and criminal legal systems. No suit which
has been directly or indirectly tried in a former suit can be
tried again.

Res Judicata example

‘A’ sued ‘B’ as he didn’t pay rent. ‘B’ pleaded for the
lessening of rent on the ground as the area of the land was less
than the mentioned on the lease. The Court found that the area
was greater than shown in the lease. The area was excess and
the principles 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. She was barred from bringing a claim of res judicata
because her previous claim was dismissed for fraud. The
Court said that the defence of res judicata must be proved by
evidence.
Principle of Res Judicata
The principle of res judicata seeks to promote the fair
administration of justice and honesty and to prevent the law
from abuse. The principle of res judicata applies when a
litigant attempts to file a subsequent lawsuit on the same
matter, after having received a judgment in a previous case
involving the same parties. In many jurisdictions, this applies
not only to the specific claims made in the first case but also
to claims that could have been made during the same case.

Pre-requisites for Res Judicata

Prerequisites of res judicata includes:

A judicial decision by proficient court or tribunal,

Final and binding and
Any decision made on the merits
A fair hearing
Earlier decision right or wrong is not relevant.
Nature and Scope of Res Judicata
Res judicata includes two concepts of claim preclusion and
issue preclusion. Issue preclusion is also known as collateral
estoppel. Parties cannot sue each other again after the final
judgment on the basis of merits has reached in civil litigation.
For example, if a plaintiff wins or loses a case against the
defendant in the case say A, he cannot probably sue the
defendant again in case B based on the same facts and events.
Not even in a different court with the same facts and events.
Whereas in issue preclusion it prohibits the relitigation of
issues of law that have already been determined by the judge
as part of an earlier case.

The scope has been decided in the case of Gulam Abbas v.

State of Uttar Pradesh. I this case the court incorporated the
rules as evidence as a plea of an issue already tries in an
earlier case. Judgment of this case was difficult as the judges
should apply res judicata. It was decided that res judicata is
not exhaustive and even if the matter is not directly covered
under the provisions of the section it will be considered as a
case of res judicata on general principles.

Rationale
The principle of res judicata is founded upon the principles of
justice, equity, and good conscience and it applies to various
civil suits and criminal proceedings. The purpose of this
principle was to inculcate finality into litigation.
Failure to Apply
When a court fails to apply Res Judicata and renders a
divergent verdict on the same claim or issue and if the third
court faces the same issue, it will apply a “last in time” rule. It
gives effect to the later judgment and it does not matter about
the result that came differently in the second time. This
situation is typically the responsibility of the parties to the suit
to bring the earlier case to the judge’s attention, and the judge
must decide how to apply it, whether to recognize it in the
first place.

Doctrine of Res Judicata

The double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution protects people from being put on a second
trial after the case has been judged. So the doctrine of res
judicata addresses this issue and it bars any party to retry a
judgment once it has been decided.

Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Court incorporates the

doctrine of res judicata also known as “ rule of conclusiveness
of judgment”. The doctrine of res judicata has been explained
in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi. The
judgment of the court was delivered by Das Gupta, J. An
appeal was made by landlords who attained a decree for
ejectment against the tenants who were Deorajin Debi and her
minor son. However, they have not been yet able to get
possession in execution soon after the decree was made. An
application was made by the tenant under Section 28 of the
Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act and alleged that they were the
Thika tenants. This application was resisted by the landlords
saying they were not Thika Tenants within the meaning of the
Act.

The tenants moved to the High Court of Calcutta under the

Civil Procedure Code. The court applied the principle of res
judicata to achieve the finality in litigation. The result came
that the original court, as well as the higher court, can proceed
for any future litigation on the basis that the previous decision
was correct.

The doctrine of res judicata says –

That no person should be disputed twice for the same reason.

It is the State that decides there should be an end to a
litigation
A judicial decision must be accepted as the correct decision.
Res judicata under CPC
Section 11 of the CPC states that once an issue has been
finally decided by a court, it cannot be made the subject
matter of another suit. The Courts are barred from entertaining
suits in which the matter directly and substantially at issue has
already been finally decided by another court in a previous
suit.

The 1976 Amendment Act expanded the scope of Section 11

and brought execution proceedings within the purview of this
Act. The definition of res judicata provided under Section 11
is not exhaustive.

The rationale of the principle of res judicata can be traced to

three judicial maxims:

Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa: This maxim
means no person shall be subject to prosecution for the same
action twice. This principle aims to protect an offender from
frivolous litigation. The aim of the criminal justice system is
reformation, not vexatious litigation against the offender.
Res judicata pro veritate accipitur: A decision of a judicial
authority must be duly accepted as correct. If the judicial
decision is not respected as conclusive, then there will be
indefinite litigation, which will lead to confusion and chaos.
Interest republicae ut sit finis litium: The interest of state lies
in an end to litigation. It is a part of the public policy of the
country that the courts should not be overburdened by the
piling up of repeated suits over the same subject matter.
The jurisprudential significance of these three principles
makes res judicata a universal concept.

Directly and substantially in issue

Merely because a matter was in issue in a former suit would
not suffice to invoke the doctrine of res judicata. It is
necessary that the matter be directly and substantially in issue
in the previous suit. It should have been alleged by one party
and admitted or denied by the other party. The admission or
denial may be done expressly or by necessary implication.

The doctrine of res judicata applies where the issues in the

two suits are identical in nature. Thus, even if the cause of
action, object, and relief claimed in the two suits are distinct,
the doctrine of res judicata can be invoked so long as the
issues are identical.

A suit may also involve certain subsidiary issues that are

secondary to the primary issues. Those issues that are
ancillary to the substantial and direct issues are known as
collateral or incidental issues. The doctrine of res judicata
cannot be invoked with respect to these collateral or incidental
issues.

Decision on merits
The decision of a court will operate as res judicata only if it is
given on the merits of the case. Thus, if a suit is dismissed due
to an absence of jurisdiction or if a compromise decree is
passed by the court, then such a dismissal or suit will not
operate as res judicata. Similarly, if a suit is dismissed on
procedural grounds such as misjoinder of parties or due to
failure in furnishing security, then such a decision would not
operate as res judicata.

Constructive Res Judicata

The rule of constructive res judicata in Section 11 of the Civil
Procedure Code is an artificial form of res judicata. It
provides that if a plea has been taken by a party in a
proceeding between him and the defendant he will not be
permitted to take pleas against the same party in the following
proceeding with reference to the same matter. It is opposed to
public policies on which the principle of res judicata is based.
It would mean harassment and hardship to the defendant. The
rule of constructive res judicata helps in raising the bar. Hence
this rule is known as the rule of constructive res judicata
which in reality is an aspect of augmentation of the general
principles of res judicata.

In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain, M

was a sub-inspector and was dismissed from the service of
D.I.G. he challenged the order of dismissal by filing a writ
petition in the High Court. He said that he did not get a
reasonable opportunity of being heard before the passing of
the order. However, the argument was negatived and the
petition was dismissed. He again filed a petition on the ground
that he was appointed by the I.G.P. and had no power to
dismiss him. The defendant argued that the suit was barred by
constructive res judicata. However, the trial court, the first
appellate court as well as the High Court held that the suit was
not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Supreme Court
held that the suit was barred by constructive res judicata as the
plea was within the knowledge of the plaintiff, M and he
could have taken this argument in his earlier suit.

The doctrine of constructive res judicata has been

incorporated in Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. Explanation IV provides that all those
matters that ought to have been made a ground of defence or
attached to a suit but were omitted, will also be deemed to
have been directly or substantially in issue in such a suit. If a
party fails to raise a reasonable ground of defence or attack
during a suit, then such an issue is presumed to have been
decided against the defaulting party.

Every judicial action has its foundation in a cause of action.

When the courts pronounce a final order, the cause of action is
deemed extinguished. Thus, the same cause of action cannot
be agitated again in order to claim relief that should have been
claimed in the initial suit. The cause of action cannot survive
the judgement and is deemed to have been merged in the
judgement.

Res Judicata and Estoppel

Estoppel means the principle which prevents a person from
asserting something that is contrary to what is implied by a
previous action. It deals in Section 115 to Section 117 of the
Indian Evidence act. The rule of constructive res judicata is
the rule of estoppel. In some areas the doctrine of res judicata
differs from the doctrine of estoppel –

Estoppel flows from the act of parties whereas res judicata is

the result of the decision of the court.
Estoppel proceeds upon the doctrine of equity, a person has
induced another to alter his position to his disadvantage can
not turn around and take advantage of such alteration. In other
words, res judicata bars multiplicity of suits and estoppel
precludes multiplicity of representation of cases.
Estoppel is a rule of evidence and is enough for the party
whereas res judicata expels the jurisdiction of a court to try a
case and prevents an enquiry at the threshold (in limine).
Res judicata forbidden a person averring the same thing twice
in the litigations and estoppel prevents the person from saying
two opposite things at a time.
According to the principle of res judicata, it presumes the
truth of decision in the former suit while the rule of estoppel
precludes the party ton deny what he or she has once called
truth.
The object of res sub judice is to prevent two concurrent
courts from entertaining the same suit simultaneously. This
ensures that two parallel litigations are not carried on with
respect to the same subject matter and the same relief. The
doctrine of res judicata, on the other hand, is to prevent a
subsequent suit from being filed over a subject matter that has
already been decided by a competent court.
The doctrine of res subjudice is contained in Section 10 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It provides that a court shall
not admit a suit whose subject matter is directly and
substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit.

Res judicata and Res Subjudice

The doctrine of res judicata and res subjudice varies in some
factors –

Res sub judice applies to a matter that is pending trial whereas

res judicata applies to a matter adjudicated or arbitrated.
Res subjudice prohibits the trial of a suit that is pending
decision in a previous suit whereas res judicata prohibits the
trial of a suit that has been decided in a former suit.
Res judicata and suit withdrawal
The principle of res judicata will also apply where a suit has
been withdrawn under Order 23, Rule 1 without the prior
permission of the court. Order 23, Rule 1, gives the plaintiff
the option to withdraw or abandon, at any time after the suit
has been instituted, his claims. However, the liberty under
Order 23 Rule 1 cannot be exercised for the purpose of
instituting a fresh suit on the same subject matter after
withdrawing the current suit.

If any party withdraws the suit or abandons the claims, then it

will be barred by the principle of res judicata from instituting
a fresh suit with respect to the same claims.

However, if the party obtains the express permission of the

court before withdrawing the claims and the court authorises
the party to institute a fresh suit, then the same would not be
barred by res judicata.

Res judicata and Issue Estoppel

A person who has once been tried by a court of proficient
jurisdiction for an offence and convicted of that offence
cannot be tried again for the same offence as long as acquittal
operates. This is given under Section 300(1) of the Civil
Procedure Court. A party cannot proceed to reopen the case if
the matter is finally decided by a competent or proficient
court. This principle applies to criminal proceedings and it is
not allowed in the stage of the same proceedings to try a
person for an offence for which he has been acquitted.

Res Judicata and Stare Decisis

Res judicata means a case that has already been decided or a
matter settled by a decision or judgment. Res judicata and
stare decisis both are related to matters of adjudication
(arbitration). Stare decisis rests on legal principles whereas res
judicata is based on the conclusiveness of judgment. Res
judicata binds the parties while stare decisis operates between
strangers and bins the courts to take a contrary view on the
law already decided. Stare decisis is mostly about legal
principle while res judicata relates to controversy.

Res judicata and writ petition

The doctrine of res judicata also applies to writ petitions filed
under Articles 32 and 226. If this doctrine is not applied to
writ petitions, then it would be open to parties to challenge
every decided issue through a writ petition, and there would
be no end to litigation.

Thus, if any issue has been raised before and decided by the
Supreme Court under Article 32, then the same issue cannot
be raised by the same parties before the High Court under
Article 226. Similarly, if any issue has been decided by the
High Court under Article 226, then a writ petition under
Article 32 concerning the same issue and involving the same
parties would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

However, if any writ petition is dismissed by the High Court

on any procedural grounds due to the laches of the parties,
then the same would not be sufficient to invoke res judicata,
and such a dismissal order would not bar an alternate remedy
under Article 32. Similarly, if a petition is dismissed in limine
(at the very outset) and no speaking order is made by the
court, then such a dismissal would not involve the bar of res
judicata.

Lastly, if a writ petition under Article 226 is withdrawn, then

there would be no bar of res judicata as there would be no
judgment on the merits of the case.

Representative suit
A representative suit can be filed where numerous parties
have a common interest and the court permits one or a few of
them to collectively represent the interests of all the parties.
The purpose of a representative suit is to avoid complex
litigation. A representative suit can be filed under Order I Rule
8 of CPC.

The decision made in a representative suit is binding on all the

parties whose interests were represented in the suit.
Explanation VI to Section 11 of the CPC states that where
bona fide litigation is initiated in respect of a common private
right or a public right, the outcome of such litigation would
operate as res judicata on all persons having an interest in that
right. It is not necessary that all the interested parties be
named in the litigation. The only prerequisite is that the
interests of these persons must have been represented in a
bona fide manner by the institutor of the litigation.

What is Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel?

The doctrine of collateral estoppel says that an issue or case
that has been litigated cannot be litigated again. For collateral
estoppel to apply, the following requirements are required.

The issue in the first and second case is the same; The party
against whom the doctrine is invoked had the full opportunity
to litigate the issue; That party actually litigated the issue; The
issue litigated must have been necessary to the final judgment.

The doctrine of res judicata bars the re-litigation of a claim

that has already been litigated. There are four factors that must
be satisfied for res judicata to apply:

A previous case in which the same claim was raised or could

have been raised;
The judgment in the prior case involved the same parties or
their privies;
The previous case was resolved by a final judgment on the
merits;
The parties should have a fair opportunity to be heard.
For example, Abela sued John who is a supervisor for
sexually harassing her and due to that, she had to quit her job.
Abela provided the evidence by producing emails written by
him. But John argued that the emails were not real but the
judge said that the emails were real and could be submitted as
evidence. After a few months after the trial, Abela filed a
lawsuit against her employer as he did not take any action
about the complaint. If the emails that were submitted by
Abela, were not genuine the issue would fall under collateral
estoppel. The issue of authenticity of the emails was already
decided in the previous case and hence the court cannot
redecide the issue.

Res Judicata landmark cases

Brobston v. Darby Borough
In the case of Brobston v. Darby Borough, Brobston was the
plaintiff who was injured while driving a vehicle on a public
highway in the Borough of Darby. Due to a transit company
that was occupying the street, the steering wheel of the
machine operating pulled by the driver’s hand. This resulted
in injury to the complainant. A suit was filed against the street
railway in the Court of Philadelphia to recover damages. It
was proved that negligence was there on the part of both the
parties also known as contributory negligence. The judgment
was passed in favour of the defendant. Later action was again
brought against the same defendant based on the same cause
of action and against the same transit company. The judgment
in the first proceeding was brought to the attention of the
court. The plaintiff admitted that Brobston was the same
person who was the plaintiff in the action brought earlier in
Philadelphia.

The action was brought for injuries occurring at the same

place and the verdict of the court was in favour of the
defendant. The facts and cause of action were the same but the
only difference was the name of the defendant. The legal
question involved was what are the rights of the plaintiff in
this case. The court refused the facts which were proven by
the counsel. Hence a nonsuit was entered because of the
earlier judgment. The plaintiff should have been permitted to
call the witness but no merit was seen.

https://lawsikho.com/course/diploma-advanced-contract-
drafting-negotiation-dispute-resolution
Click here
These conditions were entered in the record to enable the
Court to pass the legal question involved. The plaintiff had the
right to recover under the circumstances. The counsel made an
offer to prove the facts which the court had refused to do. A
complaint was made that the plaintiff must have been
permitted to call the witness to establish the matters. The facts
were essential for the legal determination of liability before
the court and consent of both the parties were needed.

Lowe v. Haggerty
In the case of Lowe v. Haggerty, a question was raised
considering the effect of former judgment for defendant when
he was sued by the guest. It was held that a suit was bar by the
driver of the car which had been struck by any other person.
There was no previous record that disclosed what was in the
first proceeding. It was held that it was not possible to
determine what was the issue involved in the previous suit. A
different situation was there the court disposed of the record
made by the parties. Nonsuit was not granted in this case and
the plaintiff’s appeal was refused.

Henderson v. Henderson
Henderson v Henderson was a case in which the English
Court confirmed that a party can not raise a claim in litigation
which was raised in the previous suit. In 1808, two brothers
Bethel and Jordan Henderson became business partners and
they operated in both Bristol and Newfoundland. In 1817,
their father died on a date that was not recorded. The wife of
Jordan Henderson was appointed as the administrator and she
brought legal proceedings in the Court. She also brought
separate proceedings and claimed that he had failed to provide
an account as executor of the will. The Court of Appeal held
that there was no estoppel by convention and that the
proceedings were an abuse under the rule in Henderson v
Henderson. The Court of Appeal held that just one of Mr
Johnson’s claims should be struck out for a reflective loss.

Johnson v. Gore Wood and Company

Johnson v Gore Wood and Company is a leading UK case in
which the House of Lords decided the case relating to
litigating issues that had already been determined in the
previous litigation. Mr Johnson was a director and majority
shareholder in a lot of companies, including Westway Homes
Limited and Gore Wood & Co were a firm of lawyers who
acted for the companies and also occasionally worked for Mr
Johnson in his personal capacity.

In 1998, Gore Wood was acting for the company and served
notice to acquire land from a third party upon the lawyers for
that third party. The third-party alleged that this was not
service, and refused to convey the land. Legal proceedings
followed and ultimately the company succeeded. However,
because the third party was penurious and was funded by legal
aid, the wood company was unable to regain the full amount
of its losses and legal costs.
Accordingly, the wood company issued proceedings against
Gore Wood for negligence and alleged that their losses would
have been entirely prevented if Gore Wood had properly
served the original notice on the third party instead of the
third party’s lawyers.

Gore Wood ultimately settled those claims, and the settlement

agreement included two provisions that were later proved that
they were important. Firstly, it included a clause stating that
any amount which Mr Johnson wished to subsequently claim
against Gore Wood in his personal capacity would be limited
to an amount, excluding interest and costs. The confidentiality
clause contained an exception which permitted the settlement
agreement to be referred which Mr Johnson brought against
Gore Wood.

Mr Johnson then issued proceedings against Gore Wood in his

personal name, and Gore Wood made applications to dismiss
some or all of the claims on the basis that it was an abuse of
process to seek to litigate again the issues which had already
been compromised in the agreement.

Res Judicata landmark cases in India

Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh
In the historic case of Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the
doctrine of res judicata is of universal application was
established. The Supreme Court of India placed the doctrine
of res judicata on a still broader foundation. In this case,
petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad
under Article 226 of the Constitution. But the suit was
dismissed. Then they filed independent petitions in the
Supreme Court under the writ jurisdiction of Article 32 of the
Constitution. The defendants raised an objection regarding the
petition by asserting that the prior decision of the High Court
would be operated as res judicata to a petition under Article
32. The Supreme Court dismissed and disagreed with the
petitions.

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

Devilal Modi vs. Sales Tax Officer

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

Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh

A peculiar problem arose in the case of Avtar Singh v. Jagjit
Singh. A filed a civil suit, a contention regarding the
arbitration of the Court was taken by B. The objection was
sustained and the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for the
presentation. The Revenue Court did not have any jurisdiction
when A approached the Revenue Court so he returned the
petition. Once again A filed a suit in the Civil Court. B
contended that the suit was barred by the doctrine of res
judicata.

Mathura Prasad v. Dossabai N.B. Jeejeebhoy

In the case of Mathura Prasad v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, it
was held that res judicata constitutes between the parties to
the previous case and cannot move again in collateral
proceedings. Generally, a decision by a competent court
operates as res judicata even on point of law. However, a
question of law which is not related to facts that gives rise to
the right, will not operate as res judicata. When the cause of
action is different or the law is different, the decision has been
already altered by an authority. The decision made will be
declared as valid and res judicata will not operate in the
subsequent proceeding.
Exceptions to res judicata
Cases where Res Judicata does not apply
The principle of res judicata does not apply in the Writ of
Habeas Corpus as far as High Courts are concerned. Article
32 gives power to the Supreme Court to issue writs and some
power is given to High Courts under Article 226. The Courts
need to give proper reasoning while applying the doctrine of
res judicata. There are some exceptions to res judicata which
allow the party to challenge the validity of the original
judgment even outside the appeals. These exceptions are
usually known as collateral attacks and are based on
jurisdictional issues. It is not based on the wisdom of the
earlier decision of the court but the authority to issue it. Res
judicata may not be applicable when cases appear that they
need relitigation.

Pure question of law

The principle of res judicata does not apply to pure questions
of law. For example, if any decision is rendered by a court of
incompetent jurisdiction, a challenge to the jurisdiction of the
court, being a pure question of law, would not be barred by res
judicata. If a court does have the competent jurisdiction to try
a case, then the decision rendered by it cannot be accorded
finality by relying on the principle of res judicata. Thus, the
jurisdiction of the court, being a pure question of law, can
always be challenged in a subsequent suit. Similarly, if any
other pure question of law is erroneously decided by a court,
then such erroneous interpretation can be challenged in a
subsequent suit, and it would not be barred by res judicata.

Instalment Supply private limited vs. Union of India

In cases of income tax or sales tax, the doctrine of res judicata
does not apply. It was discussed in the case of Instalment
Supply private limited vs. Union of India where the Supreme
Court held that assessment of each year is final for that year
and it will not govern in the subsequent years. As it
determines the tax only for that particular period.

P. Bandhopadhya and others v. Union of India and others

In the case of P. Bandhopadhya and others v. Union of India
and others, The appeal was made in the Bombay High Court
and the appellants asserted that they will be entitled to receive
an amount as damages. The Supreme Court bench held that
the appellants were not entitled to receive damages which
were pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules 1972. They
were entitled to receive benefits as the case was barred by the
principle of res judicata.

In the case of Public Interest Litigation, the doctrine of res

judicata does not apply. As the primary object of res judicata
is to bring an end to litigation so there is no reason to extend
the principle of public interest litigation.
Dismissal of special leave petition in limine does not operate
as res judicata between the parties. A fresh petition will not be
filed either under Article 32 or under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

Beliram and Brothers v. Chaudhari Mohammed Afzal

In the case of Beliram and Brothers v. Chaudhari Mohammed
Afzal, it was held that a minors suit cannot be brought by the
guardian of the minors. However, it was brought in
collaboration with the defendants and the decree obtained was
by fraud within the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it will not
operate res judicata.

Jallur Venkata Seshayya v. Thadviconda Koteswara Rao

In the case of Jallur Venkata Seshayya vs. Thadviconda
Koteswara Rao, a suit was filed in the Court so that certain
temples are called public temples. A similar suit was
dismissed by the Court two years ago and the plaintiff
contended that it was negligence on the part of the plaintiffs
(of the previous suit) and therefore the doctrine of res judicata
can not be applied. However, the privy council said that the
documents were suppressed which means that the plaintiff in
the earlier suit had bona fide intention( something that is
genuine and there is no intention to deceive).
Can Res Judicata be waived?
In the case of P.C. Ray and Company Private Limited v.
Union of India it was held that the plea of res judicata may be
waived by a party to a proceeding. If a defendant does not
raise the defence of res judicata then it will be waived. The
principle of res judicata belongs to the procedure and either
party can waive the plea of res judicata. The court can decline
the question of res judicata on the ground that it has not been
raised in the proceedings.

How to defeat Res Judicata?

The doctrine of res judicata would not apply to the case until
the conditions are met. The essential condition for the
applicability is that the succeeding suit or proceeding is
founded on the same cause of action on which the former suit
was founded. The principle of res judicata can be defeated
when the party has filed the suit on a reasonable ground for
example in case a public interest litigation has been filed there
is no reason not to extend the doctrine of res judicata. The PIL
has been filed with a bona fide intention and the litigation
cannot end.

The only possibility for defeating res judicata statutorily has

been provided under Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. This Section states that in a suit filed in reference to a
particular subject matter, a prior judgement on the same
subject matter would not be relevant if any of the parties was
able to establish that the prior judgement was delivered by an
incompetent court or was based on fraud and collusion.

The principle contained in Section 44 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872 has been incorporated in Section 38 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023.

Res judicata as a concept under administrative law

Administrative Law deals with the structure, functions, and
powers of the organs of administration. Administrative Law is
also known as regulatory law and it is enforced by some type
of government body. The law derives its power to enforce
regulation from the government body. This applies to all
public officials and agencies. An administrative body of
government may rulemaking or enforce a specific agenda. It is
technically considered as a branch of public law. The
administrative authority is different from the legislative and
judicial authority and necessitates the power to issue rules and
regulations that are based on grant licenses and permits. The
basic principles of this law are that no person shall be unheard
or deprived of his right and a person cannot be a judge on his
own in a case.

Res judicata works as a working principle under

administrative law and has been adopted from the Civil
Procedure Code.
Criticism to Res Judicata
Res judicata can also be applied to judgment that may be
contrary to law. The doctrine of res judicata has been used for
a long time and it encloses the general effect of one judgement
upon another trial or proceeding. It includes matters not only
those of bar but also those matters which should be litigated.
For example, if a case has been dismissed on a specific
ground by a court of law or equity and it is not deemed as a
final judgment and technically res judicata will apply but it is
not justified. If the chancellor has denied equitable relief on a
principle but it was held by the court that the plaintiff is
barred from proceeding as a legal remedy. Most of the equity
cases involve res judicata and do not get beyond collateral
estoppel. As it raises the difficulty of overlapping more than
the failure to litigate issues.

The title to real estate and the right to collect rent depended
upon one and the same construction of a will. In an
interpleader over the rents, A got the decree. B appealed,
without supersedeas, and secured a reversal, but, before his
appeal was decided, A had sued him in ejectment, invoking
the decree, and recovered a judgment for the real estate. B did
not appeal from this judgment, but, after the reversal of the
decree, he sued A in ejectment for the land, relying upon the
reversal.
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Res Judicata can be understood as something
which restricts either party to “move the clock back” during
the pendency of the proceedings. The extent of res judicata is
wide and it includes a lot of things which even include Public
Interest Litigations. This doctrine can be applied outside the
Code of Civil Procedure and covers a lot of areas which are
related to the society and people. The scope and the extent
have widened with the passage of time and the Supreme Court
has elongated the areas with its judgments.

Frequently Asked Question (FAQs)

Does constructive res judicata apply to execution
proceedings?
Like res judicata, the doctrine of constructive res judicata also
applied to execution proceedings. In an execution
proceedings, if the judgement debtor fails to raise certain
objections, then those objections are presumed to have been
decided by him. The judgement debtor cannot raise the
omitted objections in a subsequent suit.

Does res judicata also apply between co-defendants and co-

plaintiffs?
Sometimes, in order to decide the dispute between the
plaintiff and the defendant, it is necessary to first resolve the
conflict of interest between the co-plaintiff or co-defendants.
The court has to then decide the question between the co-
defendants in order to grant relief to the plaintiff. In such a
case, the decision of the court will also operate as res judicata
between the co-defendants.

Similarly, if it is necessary to first resolve a conflict between

the co-plaintiffs in order to determine the relief to which the
plaintiffs are entitled, then the decision of the court with
respect to the issue between the co-plaintiffs would also
operate as res judicata.

Who is a proforma defendant?

A proforma defendant is one who is added to a suit merely
because his presence is essential for a complete adjudication
of the suit. He is merely a nominal party to the suit and no
relief is claimed against him by the plaintiff. Since no relief is
claimed against him and he does not have any interest in the
suit, the decision of the court will not operate as res judicata
on the proforma defendant.

References
(https://williamsmestaz.com/business-litigation-blog/what-is-
the-difference-between-collateral-estoppel-and-res-judicata/)
Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963 by C.K. Takwani
Indiankanoon.com
www.legalserviceindia.com

Conclusion:
Certainly. I'll provide a detailed elaboration on the concept of
res judicata in India, including its principles, application, and
relevant case law.

Res Judicata in India:

1. Definition and Concept:

Res judicata is a legal doctrine that means "a matter already
judged." It's based on the principle that once a matter has been
decided by a competent court, it cannot be reopened by the
parties in subsequent litigation. In India, this concept is
embodied in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

2. Statutory Provision:
Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 states:
"No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter
directly and substantially in issue has been directly and
substantially in issue in a former suit between the same
parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them
claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to
try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has
been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally
decided by such Court."

3. Essential Conditions for Res Judicata:

a) The matter directly and substantially in issue in the
subsequent suit must have been directly and substantially in
issue in the previous suit.
b) The previous suit must have been between the same parties
or parties under whom they or any of them claim.
c) The parties must have litigated under the same title in the
previous suit.
d) The court which decided the previous suit must have been
competent to try the subsequent suit.
e) The matter in issue must have been heard and finally
decided by the court in the previous suit.

4. Types of Res Judicata:

a) Direct Res Judicata: When the issue has been directly and
expressly decided.
b) Constructive Res Judicata: When the issue, though not
directly decided, could have been raised in the previous
litigation.
5. Exceptions to Res Judicata:
a) Fraud or collusion in obtaining the previous decision
b) When the decision is given without jurisdiction
c) When the decision is in rem (against the whole world)
d) In cases of continuing wrongs

6. Case Law:

a) Daryao vs State of U.P. (1961):

The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata
applies to writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution. If a writ petition filed under Article 226 in a
High Court is dismissed on merits, a subsequent petition
under Article 32 in the Supreme Court on the same facts and
for the same relief would be barred by res judicata.

b) Mahendranath vs Bajkumar (1960):

The Supreme Court clarified that for res judicata to apply, it is
not necessary that the same relief should have been claimed in
the previous suit. What is material is whether the same matter
was in issue.

c) Sulochana Amma vs Narayanan Nair (1994):

The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata is
not confined to the limits prescribed in Section 11 of the CPC.
It is a fundamental principle of law that there must be an end
to litigation.

d) Forward Construction Co. vs Prabhat Mandal (1986):

The Supreme Court held that res judicata applies not only to
points which the Court was actually required to decide, but to
all points which properly belonged to the subject of litigation
and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might
have brought forward at the time.

e) State of U.P. vs Nawab Hussain (1977):

The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata
applies to different stages of the same proceeding. An order
passed at an earlier stage of the proceeding would operate as
res judicata at a later stage.

f) Satyadhyan Ghosal vs Deorajin Debi (1960):

This case established that res judicata applies not only to suits
but also to execution proceedings.

g) M. Nagabhushana vs State of Karnataka (2011):

The Supreme Court reiterated that res judicata applies not
only to civil suits but also to writ petitions, tax matters, and
industrial disputes.

7. Application in Various Fields:

Res judicata is not limited to civil suits. It applies to:
- Writ petitions
- Tax proceedings
- Industrial disputes
- Criminal proceedings (to a limited extent)
- Arbitration proceedings

8. Importance and Rationale:

The doctrine of res judicata serves several purposes:
- It prevents multiplicity of litigation
- It provides finality to judicial decisions
- It prevents harassment to parties
- It ensures judicial economy
- It maintains the dignity and authority of the courts

9. Constructive Res Judicata:

This is an extension of the principle of res judicata. It bars not
only the trial of issues actually decided in a former suit but
also the trial of such issues as could and ought to have been
raised in the former suit but were not raised. This principle
was affirmed in the case of State of U.P. vs Nawab Hussain
(1977).

10. Res Judicata and Public Interest Litigation:

In the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs
State of U.P. (1989), the Supreme Court held that the principle
of res judicata may not strictly apply to Public Interest
Litigations, especially when they involve matters of public
importance.

In conclusion, the doctrine of res judicata plays a crucial role

in the Indian legal system, ensuring finality of judgments and
preventing unnecessary litigation. Its application, while
primarily rooted in civil law, has been extended to various
other areas of law through judicial interpretation. The
numerous Supreme Court judgments on this subject have
helped in clarifying and expanding the scope of this important
legal principle.