Doctrine of Res Judicata

Mariya Paliwala September 1, 2023

This article is written by Madhuri Pilania, a first-year student pursuing BBA.LLB from
Symbiosis Law School, Noida; and Gautam Badlani, a student at Chanakya National Law
University, Patna. This article deals with the Doctrine of Res Judicata.

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Introduction
How would you know if a person can file a suit again or not? In which conditions a
person can file a suit again? So here is the answer to such questions in this article
about Res Judicata under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

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.

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 1 of 18
:
 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.

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 2 of 18
:
 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.

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 3 of 18
:
 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,

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 4 of 18
:
 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

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 5 of 18
:
 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 –

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 6 of 18
:
 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

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 7 of 18
:
 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

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 8 of 18
:
 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

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 9 of 18
:
 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

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 10 of 18
:
 merit was seen.

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

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 11 of 18
:
 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.

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 12 of 18
:
 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

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 13 of 18
:
 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.

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 14 of 18
:
 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

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 15 of 18
:
 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

https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/ 04/12/24, 7 30 PM
Page 16 of 18
: