1

SESSION: 2023-24

SUBJECT: CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

TOPIC: DOCTRINE OF “RES-JUDICATA” UNDER CPC

ASSIGNMENT

NAME: ASJAD ALAM

FACULTY ROLL NO: 19BALLB222

ENROLLMENT NO: GM9830

RD TH
YEAR & SEMESTER: 3 YEAR & 6 SEMESTER

SUBMITTED TO: ADVOCATE SALAM.

 2

I am over helmed in all humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge my depth

to all those who have helped

me to put these ideas, well above the level of simplicity and into something

concrete. I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my

teacher ADVOCATE SALAM who gave me the golden opportunity

to do this wonderful Assignment on the topic "RES-JUDICATA”, which also

helped me in doing a lot of Research and i came to know about so

many new things. I am really thankful to them. Any attempt at any level can’t be

satisfactorily completed without the support and guidance of MY parents and

friends. I would like to thank my parents

who helped me a lot in gathering different information, collecting materials

and guiding me from time to time in making this assignment, despite of their busy

schedules, they gave me different ideas in making this Assignment unique.

AABID
 3

1. ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE

2. INTRODUCTION
3. DEFINITION OF RES-JUDICATA
4. DOCTRINE OF RES-JUDICATA MEANING
5. ASSOCIATED LEGAL MAXIMS
6. SECTION-11 OF CPC
7. ESSENTIALS CONDITION OF SECTION-11
8. CASE LAWS ON RES-JUDICATA
9. EXCEPTION OF RES-JUDICATA
10. CONCLUSION
 4

The doctrine of the Rest Judicata is one of the oldest doctrines in the
history of the world. Res judicata “is as old as the law itself”. “Res
judicata pro veritate accipitur” is the Latin maxim for the doctrine of the
Res Judicata. Roots of the doctrine of Res Judicata can be found in the
various ancient legal systems. Starting from the issue preclusion in the
Germanic estoppels to the latter on the Roman res judicata which was
instigating the truth by looking into the judgmental effect. Romanic view
changes the evolution of res judicata from issue preclusion to claim
preclusion.

In the early days of England, courts were disorganized and

underdeveloped and there was no existence of concept like res judicata.
But after this doctrine of Res Judicata has been emerged in England. At
the initial stages, courts in England were using foreign analogies but
after court revised and drafted their own doctrine of the Res Judicata.

Indian Legal system adopted the doctrine of Res Judicata from the
common law. The principle of res judicata was included in Section 11 of
the Civil Procedure Code. After the Civil Procedure code,
Administrative Law accepted the applicability of the res judicata.
 5

Afterward, it was accepted by other statutes and acts and the doctrine of
res judicata started growing in the Indian Legal System.

The common Law doctrine of Res Judicata gives respect and finality to
the judicial decisions: This doctrine has been incorporated in section 11,
of C P.C. based on the general rule, that man shall not be twice vexed,
for the same cause. The bar of Res Judicata contained in section 11
would be fully attracted when matter involved in second suit was the
same as involved in previous litigation. The doctrine of res judicata is a
method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly
finished but perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary waste
of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent
future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents
litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion.

(I) According to Spencer Sower: Res judicata means “final

judicial decision pronounced by a judicial tribunal having
competent jurisdiction over the cause or matter in litigation
and over the parties thereto".
 6

(II) According to Justice Das Gupta: The doctrine of Res Judicata

has been explained in the simplest manner by Justice Das
Gupta in the following words. "The principle of Res Judicata
is based on the need of giving finality to judicial decision".

The doctrine of Res Judicata has been embodied in Section 11 of the

CPC. This is a Latin term. It means “a thing/matter adjudged”. It
indicates that where a matter is already judged, no court will have the
power to try any fresh suit or issues which has been already settled in the
former suit between the same parties.

Hence, when a competent body adjudicates upon an issue, involving the

same parties which were party to the previous suit, cannot file another
suit, asking the court to adjudicate upon the issue, which is similar to the
issue already adjudicated upon in the previous suit.

Spencer Bower was of the view that the doctrine of res judicata refers to
the final judicial decision given by a judicial tribunal that has competent
jurisdiction over the cause or matter in litigation and over the parties
thereto. Res Judicata is simply the shorter version of the original
 7

maxim ‘Res Judicata pro-Veritate Accipitur’. It means that a thing

adjudged must be taken as truth.

In the case of Lal Chand v Radha Krishnan, the Apex Court was of
the view that once the final judgment is pronounced, the judges who are
confronted with a suit which identically similar to the earlier judgment
would apply the doctrine of res judicata to save the impact of the main
judgment. This would ensure that multiplicity of the judgment pertaining
to similar matters between the same parties is kept at bay.

Elucidating upon this legal doctrine, Justice Das Gupta in Satyadhyan

Ghosal v Deorjin Debi had stated that the foundation of the doctrine of
res judicata lies in the need for giving finality to judicial decisions. It
means that once a matter is adjudicated, it mustn’t be adjudged again.
Preliminary it will be applicable as between past litigation and future
litigation. In case where a matter has been decided between parties in a
suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because they did not
resort to an appeal to a higher Court or because they said appeal was
dismissed, or in cases where there is no scope for an appeal, none of the
two parties will be permitted in a future suit or proceeding between the
same parties to canvass the matter all over again.

It is pertinent to note that as soon as a writ appeal is moved to either the

High Court or Apex Court of the country, and has been dismissed there
 8

on benefits, then a resulting writ cannot be moved in a similar court

pertaining to the same cause of action.

The doctrine of res judicata finds a mention in the laws of almost every
nation. The doctrine finds its genesis in the Roman law which
acknowledged the concept of “one suit and one decision was enough for
any single dispute.” It is essential to note that even the Hindus and the
Muslim Jurists recognized the doctrine of res judicata. In ancient Hindu
Law, this doctrine was referred to as Purva Nyaya which meant former
judgment.

Associated Legal Maxims to Doctrine of Res

Judicata
It would be right to say that the Doctrine of Res Judicata primarily takes
inspiration from three legal maxims. Nemo Debet Lis Vexari Pro Eadem
Causa is the legal maxim that can be associated with this doctrine.
According to this maxim, a person must not be vexed annoyed, harassed
or vexed twice for the same cause. The second legal maxim is Interest
Republicae Ut Sin Finis Litium, meaning, it is in the interest of the state
to put a stop to litigation. Lastly, Re judicata pro veritate
occipital, meaning, the decision of the court of law must be adjudged as
true.

In cases where the former judgment is not sound or erroneous, this

doctrine can work against the injured party to the former suit.
 9

Nonetheless, we must keep in mind that the Doctrine of Res Judicata

tries to secure public interest and upholds the principle of public policy.
Hence, leaving very little scope for absolute justice. Where one of the
parties feels like the judgment is not sound, they have the option to
appeal the respective court of appeal.

Section 11 of the CPC propounds upon the doctrine of Res Judicata. It

reads as follows:
“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”.
Explanation 1 of Section 11 clears the air around the meaning of ‘former
suit’ as used in Section 11. Here, ‘former suits’ refer to those suits which
have been decided before the suit in question irrespective of whether it
was instituted prior thereto.
Explanation 2 talks about the determination of the competence of a
court.
 10

Explanation 3, again, deals with the matter of former suit and states that
the former suit must be alleged by one party and denied by the other.
Explanation 4 talks about the subject matter and states that where any
matter has already been made a ground in the former suit, such a matter
can be said to be a matter in the former suit.
Explanation 5 states that relief claimed and not granted is deemed to
have been rejected/refused.
Explanation 6 states that where a person initiates a proceeding pertaining
to a public right, all such persons who have interest in the said right
would be deemed to claim under that person who initiated the litigation.
Explanation 7 elucidates upon the applicability of the doctrine of Res
Judicata on the execution of a decree.
Explanation 8 states that where a former court becomes incompetent to
try a subsequent suit due to incompetency to try it due to limitation
pertaining to its jurisdiction, the doctrine of Res judicata will be applied.

There are certain conditions for the applicability of the Doctrine of Res
Judicata under Section 11 of the CPC. The following conditions must be
met with to avail the plea of Res Judicata.

1. Both the suits must be between the same parties or their

representative. If the parties to both the suits are different there
would lay no ground for the application of the doctrine of Res
 11

Judicata. Both, the parties as well as their privies will be bound by

Res Judicata.

2. They should prosecute under the same title. This refers to the
capacity of the party.

3. The matter directly and substantially in issue in both the suits must
be related or, the issue directly and substantially in issue in the
ensuing suit should likewise be directly and substantially in issue
in the previous suit.

4. For the application of doctrine of Res Judicata, it is essential to

ensure that the matter in the former or previous suit was heard and
decided. Therefore, where the suit was dismissed because the
plaintiff failed to appear or on technical defect, or on the ground
for misjoinder of parties, etc., the doctrine of res judicata would
not be applicable in the subsequent suit.

5. The court that decided the previous suit has the competency to
decide the subsequent suit. This doctrine will be devoid of any
significant bearing where the order was passed without
jurisdiction. The underlying principle for this condition is that the
court having limited jurisdiction cannot bind a court to have larger
jurisdiction by its decision.
 12

The following are a few case laws related to the Doctrine of Res
Judicata:

1. Daryao v. State of UP, AIR 1961 SC 1457

In this case, the Apex Court placed this doctrine on a higher footing,
considering and treating the binding character of the judgments
pronounced by competent courts as an essential part of the rule of law.

2. Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. & Anr. V. Janapada Sabha

Chhindwara & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1013

The court held that the general principle of doctrine of res judicata
applies to writ petitions filed under Article 32 and 226. Further, the court
ensured that the application of this doctrine to the petitions filed
under Article 32, does not in any way impair the fundamental
rights guaranteed to the citizens. It only seeks to regulate the manner in
which the said rights could be successfully asserted and vindicated in
courts of law.

3. State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organisation &

Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1846
 13

In this case, it was held that the doctrine of Res Judicata would be
applicable to a Public Interest Litigation, provided the earlier case was a
genuine and a bona fide litigation as the judgment in the earlier case
would be a judgment in rem.

However, there are limited exceptions to Res Judicata that allow a party
to attack the validity of the original judgment, even outside of appeals.
These exceptions - usually called collateral attacks - are typically based
on procedural or jurisdictional issues, based not on the wisdom of the
earlier court's decision but its authority or competence to issue it. A
collateral attack is more likely to be available (and to succeed) in
judicial systems with multiple jurisdictions, such as under federal
governments, or when a domestic court is asked to enforce or recognise
the judgment of a foreign court.

In addition, in cases involving due process, cases that appear to be Res

Judicata may be re-litigated. An instance would be the establishment of
a right to counsel. People who have had their liberty taken away (that is,
imprisoned) may be allowed to be re-tried with a counselor as a matter
of fairness.
 14

In the case of Jallur Venkata Seshayya vs. Thadviconda Koteswara

Rao, a suit was filed in the Court for the purpose of declaring certain
temples public temples and for setting aside alienation of endowed
property by the manager thereof. A similar suit was dismissed by the
Court two years ago and the plaintiffs here contended that it was the
gross negligence on the part of the plaintiffs (of the previous suit) and
hence the doctrine of Res Judicata should not be applied. But, the Privy
Council said that finding of a gross negligence by the trial court was far
from a finding of intentional suppression of the documents, which would
amount, to want of bona fide or collusion on the part of the plaintiffs in
prior suit. There being no evidence in the suit establishing either want of
bona fide of collusion on the part of plaintiffs as res judicata.

In the case of Beliram and Brothers vs. Chaudari Mohammed

Afzal it was held that where a minors suit was not brought by the
guardian of the minors bona fide but was brought in collusion with the
defendants and the suit was a fictitious suit, a decree obtained therein is
one obtained by fraud and collusion within the meaning of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, s. 44 and does not operate Res Judicata. The
principle of Res Judicata in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, s. 11 is
modified by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 44 and the principles will
not apply if any of the three grounds mentioned in s. 44 exists. General
 15

principles may not be applied in a way making Code of Civil Procedure,

1908, s. 11 nugatory.

While discussing the doctrine of Res Judicata, it is essential to realize

that the main objective behind this doctrine is to prevent multiplicity of
suits, to ensure the court’s resources are not being misused or wasted, to
prevent injustice by ensuring that there is no unnecessary recovery of
damages twice for the same matter. Perpetual litigation would do no
good to society at large. The Doctrine of Res Judicata must be applied
mindfully. We must realize that this doctrine has a very wide scope and
the application of which is constantly changing and evolving.

1. THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, DR.AVTAR SINGH

2. CIVIL PROCEDURE, 9TH EDITION- C.K.TAKWANI
3. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE- SINGHAL LAW PUBLICATION
4. WWW.SLIDESHARE.NET
5. WWW.LEGALSERVICE.COM
6. LEGISLATIVE.GOV.IN