Menu

a
Article
Home » Articles » What is Res Judicata

What is Res Judicata

by Advocate Mr. Ambransh Bhandari | Jan 2, 2020 |

Introduction
The doctrine of res judicata is a fundamental concept in the organization of every jural society
with universal application. In the words of Justice Campbell, Former Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States “Justice requires that every cause should be once fairly tried,
and public tranquillity demands that having been tried once, all litigation about that should be
concluded forever between those parties.” 1 If there had been no such rule there would have been
endless litigation; the rights of the contesting parties would have been involved in endless
confusion. For maintaining the public order, the repose of society, and the quiet of families require
that what has been decided by competent tribunals shall be accepted as irrefragable legal truth.

From the time immemorial, the Courts have accepted the principle of the ‘conclusiveness of
judgments’. It has been observed that the parties can not discuss the same question again in
another action, although some objection or argument might have been urged upon the first trial
which would have led to a different judgment, and was not urged. The bar of res judicata cannot be
challenged even if subsequently new facts have arisen. 2 2
History
The rule of res judicata has an ancient history. It was also observed and implemented by both
Mohammedan jurists and Hindu lawyers. In ancient Hindu Law, Res judicata was recognized as
Purva Nyaya (former judgment) and under Roman law, it was recognized that “one suit and one
decision was enough for any single dispute”. The doctrine was accepted in the European continent
and as well as in the Commonwealth countries.3

The term res judicata is of Roman origin and has been derived from the maxim ‘Res judicata pro
veritate acciputor’, meaning that issue once decided attains finality and no further case can be
filed to decide the similar issue. The doctrine of res judicata has been incorporated in the English
legal system for quite a long time.

At times, the rule worked harshly on individuals. For instance, -when the former decision was
flawed but its operation was justified on the principle of public policy, which required that there
must be an end to litigation. The basis of the doctrine of res judicata is to ensure public interest at
large and not absolute justice. In the event of a wrong decision, the remedy is to challenge the
decision by way of an appeal and not by instituting a fresh case.

Spencer Bower gave a definition of the principle of Res judicata “a final judicial decision
pronounced by a judicial tribunal having competent jurisdiction over the cause or the matter in
litigation, and over the parties thereto.” 4

In the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi 5, the term res judicata has been expounded by
Das Gupta: The necessity for the doctrine of res judicata is based on finality to judicial decisions. It
simply means that once a res is Judicata the same matter shall not be adjudged again

Objective
The doctrine of res Judicata is propounded in the larger public interest with a view to ending all
litigation sooner than later. The principle has been propounded on the footing of justice, equity
and a good conscience which requires a party to be not harassed multiple times involving the
same issue 6 . In India, the rule of Res judicata is enshrined under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure
Code which lays down this principle in a statutory form. The rule is founded on public policy and
upon the need of giving finality to judicial decisions.

The doctrine of Res Judicata has been originated from 3 Roman maxims:

1. Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa – It  means that no person  should be vexed annoyed,
harassed  or vexed two times for the same cause;
2. Interest republicae ut sit finis litium – It means that it is in  the interest of the state that there
should be an end of litigation; and
2
3. Re judicata pro veritate occipitur – Decision of the court should be adjudged as true.

Nature and Scope of Res-Judicata

Res- judicata includes two related concepts: claim preclusion and issue preclusion (also called
collateral estoppels or issue estoppels) though sometimes res judicata are used more narrowly to
mean only claim preclusion.

1. Claim preclusion bars a suit from being brought again on an event which was the subject of a
previous legal cause of action that has already been finally decided between the parties of those
in relation to a party.
2. Issue preclusion bars the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily
determined by a judge as a part of an earlier case.
3. It is often difficult to determine which, if either, of these concepts, apply to later lawsuits that
are seemingly related because many causes of action can supply to the same factual situation and
vice versa. The scope of an earlier judgment is probably the most difficult question that judges
must revolve in applying res judicata. Sometimes merely part of the action will be affected. For
example, a single claim may be struck from a complaint, or a single factual issue may be removed
from reconsideration in the new trial.

Conditions of Res Judicata 

The issues involved, adjudicated and decided in a former suit can’t always operate as res judicata
in a subsequent suit. As per section 11 of the code, a matter to be termed as res judicata must
satisfy the following conditions 7 :

In order to res judicata to be applicable, it has to be considered that in the subsequent suit filed,
the matter in issue is directly and substantially be related to the former suit which has been
decided on merits. Further the subsequent filed between the same parties is under the same name
and is filed in a Court having similar Jurisdiction.

The scope of res judicata is also not limited to a subsequent suit filed on a similar claim.
Resjudicata is also applicable on a suit where a party could have raised a plea against another
party in a former suit and failed to do so and has filed a subsequent suit raising such plea. This
concept is called constructive res judicata. This concept can be understood with the help of an
example: A files a suit against B for a declaration that he is entitled to the property of C being his
legal heir. The suit is dismissed. The subsequent suit claiming the same property on the ground of
adverse possession is barred by constructive res judicata.

Res Judicata Whether Compulsory or Not? 2

Since the concept of res judicata was incorporated in the Code of Civil Procedure on the footing of
justice, equity, a good conscience, and larger public interest, the doctrine of res judicata shall
apply if the ingredients of section 11 are fulfilled. Meaning thereby the doctrine of res judicata is
compulsory in nature and concession granted by an advocate shall be binding upon the interest of
the parties.

Writs and Res Judicata

An impressive list of fundamental rights is enshrined in the Constitution of India. For the proper
and efficient enforcement of these rights, the Constitution guarantees the right to move the
Supreme Court and High Courts. A right without a remedy is of no use so Article 32 guarantees the
individual right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of his
rights given to him under Part III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court or the High Court is
empowered to issue writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto
and certiorari whichever it considers appropriate.

Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court has the power throughout its jurisdiction
to issue to any person or authority these writs for the protection of fundamental rights under
Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitions filed to the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the
High Court under Article 226 are also subjected to the rule of res Judicata. 8 The application of res
judicata to the petitions filed under Article 32 doesn’t interfere with the enforceability of
fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of India. It only seeks to regulate the manner in
which the said rights could be successfully asserted in a court of law. 9

In M.S.M Sharma V. Dr. Shree Krishna 10, for the first time, Supreme Court held that the general
principle of res judicata applies even to a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India. Thus, once the petition filed under Article 32 is dismissed by the Supreme Court, a
subsequent petition is also barred.

Conclusion

The Doctrine of Res Judicata can be understood as something which restrains either party to move
the clock back during the pendency of the proceedings. This doctrine has a wide extension  and it
includes a lot of things even it includes Public Interest Litigations. This doctrine is applicable even
outside the Code of Civil Procedure as we saw its applicability in the Constitutional law likewise it
covers matters related to taxation and covers a lot of areas that 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. Some problems still persist but the courts and
legislature are trying to deal with these problems.

Footnote
2
1. Jeter Vs. Hewitt, 22 How. 352, per Campbell J.
2. Greathed Vs. Bromby, 7 T.R. 456.
3. Lachhmi v. Bhulli, AIR 1927 Lah 289; Soorjomonee Dayee v. Suddanund Mohapatter, (1873) IA Supp
212 at p.218 (PC).
4. Kevin M. Clermont, “Res Judicata as Requisite for Justice,” 68 Rutgers University Law Review
(2016).
5. Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941.
6. Lal chand v. Radha Krishnan, AIR 1977 SC 789.
7. Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, AIR 1966 SC 1332; Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa, AIR
1976 SC 1569; Jaswant Singh v. Custodian, AIR 1985 SC 1096.
8. Daryao v. Sate of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1457.
9. Amalgamated Coalfields v. Janapad Sabha, AIR 1964 SC 1013.
10. M.S.M sharma V. Dr. Shree Krishna  AIR 1960 SC 1186.

This article is written by Paras Chugh. The author can be contacted via email
at [email protected]
For more information and professional consultation regarding civil matters, our expert civil
lawyers in Chandigarh can be contacted from Monday to Friday between 10:00 am to 6:00 pm and
between 10:00 am to 2:00 pm on Saturdays.

CONSULT OUR LEGAL EXPERTS

Posted by Advocate Mr. Ambransh Bhandari

Mr. Ambransh Bhandari is a well-versed Advocate in Chandigarh High Court and is the Managing
Partner of the law firm B&B Associates LLP. Mr. Bhandari is renowned for his cogent arguments and
his valuable insights on various aspects of law; he is sought by a reputed national and
international clientele for decoding complex lawsuits and legal matters.

Related Articles

2
Understanding ‘equality’ under the Constitution of India
August 2, 2019

Legal Notice
October 15, 2018

Service of Summons
June 13, 2018

Reservation in India
June 18, 2018

2
Search

Search

Categories

Arbitration Law

Banking Law

Civil Law

Code of Criminal Procedure

Constitutional & Writ Law

Consumer Law

Contract Law

Corporate Trade Law

Court Marriage Registration

Crime Against Women

Criminal Law

Divorce Law

Education Law

Environmental Law

Family Law

Human Rights Law

Immigration Law

Industrial Projects & Infrastructure Law

2
Industrial/ Factory Law

Information Technology and Cyber Law

Intellectual Property Law

International Law

International Trade Law

Labour Law

Land/ Property Law

Law of Torts

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) Law

Service/ Employment Law

Sports Law

Taxation Law

Recent Articles

Schools Of Jurisprudence

Intercountry Adoption

Gift Deed and its applicability

Overview of Trademarks Act, 1999

Decree, Judgment and Order under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908