Res Judicata Meaning

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.
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.
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.
Doctrine of Res Judicata
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 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:

 Res judicata pro veritate accipitur:
 Interest republicae ut sit finis litium:
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.
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.

Res Judicata Meaning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Res Judicata Meaning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Res Judicata Meaning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Res Judicata meaning

Principle of Res Judicata

Nature and Scope of Res Judicata

The doctrine of res judicata says –

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

Res judicata under CPC

 Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa:

Devilal Modi vs. Sales Tax Officer

Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh

Exceptions to res judicata

Cases where Res Judicata does not apply

Pure question of law

Instalment Supply private limited vs. Union of India

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

You might also like