Res Judicata

“Res Judicata means a final judicial decision pronounced by a judicial tribunal having competent jurisdiction over the cause or matter in litigation and over the parties thereto.”

Section 11 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908[1], embodies the rule of res judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of the judgment, as to the points decided either of facts, or of law, or of facts and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties. It enacts that once a matter is finally decided by a competent Court, no party can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation.

For making Res Judicata binding, several factors must be met up with:

# identity in the thing at suit;

# identity of the cause at suit;

# identity of the parties to the action;

# identity in the designation of the parties involved;

# whether the judgment was final;

# whether the parties were given full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue.

“The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies as between past litigation and future litigation. 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.”  

‘Res’ means ‘subject matter’ or ‘dispute’ and ‘Judicata’ means ‘adjudged’, ‘decided’ or ‘adjudicated’. ‘Res Judicata’ thus means ‘a matter adjudged’ or ‘a dispute decided’.

Object:

The doctrine of res judicata is conceived in the larger public interest which requires that all the litigation must, sooner than later, come to an end. The principle is also founded on justice, equity and good conscience which require that a party who has once succeeded on an issue should not be harassed by multiplicity of proceedings involving the same issue. The doctrine of res judicata is based on 3 maxims:

1. nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no man should be vexed 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 occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct).

Conditions of Res Judicata

To constitute a matter as res judicata under Section 11, certain conditions need to be fulfilled, which were laid down in 

 1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (Explanation III) or constructively (Explanation IV) in the former suit (Explanation I). (Explanation VII is to be read with this condition).

2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim. (Explanation VI is to be read with this condition).

3. Such parties must have been litigating under the same title in the former suit.

4. The Court which decided the former suit must be a Court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised. (Explanations II and VIII are to be read with this condition).

5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the Court in the former suit. (Explanation V is to be read with this condition).

Other proceedings where the principle of res judicata applies are:

·   Industrial Adjudication

·   Public Interest Litigation

·   Criminal Proceedings

·   Writ Petitions under Articles 32 and 226

·   Ex parte decree

·   Interim order or interlocutory order deciding a controversy in part between the parties

Proceedings where res judicata is not applicable are:

·   Taxation matters

·   Res Judicata is not applicable to cases of habeas corpus petitions.

·   Dismissal of suit in default

·   Dismissal in limine

·   Dismissal of Special Leave Petition in limine by a non speaking order

·   Compromise decree, though party is precluded from challenging it by rule of estoppel[39]

·   Fraudulent decree

·   Withdrawal of suit

·   In case of change in circumstances

·   Change in law subsequent to a decision rendered by the Court.

Test of applicability

In the Court held that in order to decide the question whether a subsequent proceeding is barred by res judicata it is necessary to examine the question with reference to

·   forum or competence of the Court

·   parties and their representatives

·   matters in issue

·   matters which ought to have been made the ground for attack or defence in the former suit

·   final decision.

Res Judicata & Estoppel

The doctrine of res judicata operates as a bar on the jurisdiction of a court to try a suit which has been conclusively decided by the court with same parties, same subject matter and under same title. All these provisions are provided under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.

Whereas the doctrine estoppel as defined in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that “When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.”

Enable GingerCannot connect to Ginger Check your internet connection
or reload the browserDisable in this text fieldEditEdit in GingerEdit in Ginger×