Scribd
Upload
5 views

Google

Uploaded by

itsniikii26
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views

Google

Uploaded by

itsniikii26
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Res Judicata | 27 Jun 2024

Introduction

Res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or decided and together it means “a matter adjudged”.
Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) embodies the doctrine of Res Judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of a
judgment.
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.
It serves to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to protect parties from being vexed twice for the same cause.

Object

The object of the principle of res judicata can be traced by three judicial maxims:
Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa: It means no man should be vexed twice for the same cause.
Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium: This maxim means it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a
litigation.
Res judicata pro veritate occipitur: a judicial decision must be accepted as correct.

Essential Elements

Matter in issue must be same: To apply the principle of Res Judicata, the matter in the subsequent suit must be directly and
substantially same in the former suit.
Same Parties: The former suit must have been between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim.

Same Title: The parties must be litigating under the same title in both the former and subsequent suits.
Competent Jurisdiction: The court that decided the former suit must have had jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit or the suit in
which the issue has been raised.
Heard and Finally Decided: The matter in issue must have been heard and finally decided by the former court.

Extent and Applicability

The doctrine of res judicata applies to civil suits, execution proceedings, taxation matters, industrial adjudication, administrative
orders, interim orders, etc.
The doctrine of res judicata codified in Section 11 of CPC is not exhaustive.

Former Suit: Explanation I

Explanation I to Section 11 of CPC provides that the expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the
suit in question whether it was instituted prior thereto.
It is not the date on which the suit is filed that matters but the date on which the suit is decided.
Even if a suit was filed later, it will be a former suit within the meaning of explanation I if it has been decided earlier.

Constructive Res Judicata: Explanation IV

The rule of constructive Res Judicata engrafted in Explanation IV to Section 11 of the CPC.
It is aimed at preventing not only the relitigating of issues that were decided in a previous suit but also those issues that could have
been raised and decided but were not.
It is opposed to public policies on which the principle of res judicata is based.

Representative Suit: Explanation VI

Explanation VI to Section 11 of the CPC states that where bona fide litigation is initiated in respect of a common private or a public
right, the decision of such litigation would operate as res judicata on all persons having an interest in that right.
The following conditions must be satisfied before a decision may operate as res judicata under explanation VI:
There must be a right claimed by one or more persons in common for themselves and others not expressly named in the suit.
The litigation must have been conducted bonafide and on behalf of all parties interested.
If the suit is under Order I Rule 8 of CPC, all conditions laid down therein must have been strictly complied with.

Exceptions to Res Judicata

Writ of Habeas Corpus: The principle of Res Judicata does not apply to the writ of Habeas Corpus.
Fraud or Collusion: If the original judgment was obtained through fraud or collusion, it may not be binding in subsequent
litigation.
Substantial changes in evidence: If some new evidence emerges that could not have been discovered with due diligence during the
prior suit, then the Court may allow the issue to be re-litigated.
Incompetent Jurisdiction of Court: If the court that rendered the original judgment lacked proper jurisdiction, the decision may
not have a binding effect.

Case laws

Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1961):


The Supreme Court held that the rule of res judicata applies also to a petition filed under article 32 of the constitution.
State of U.P v. Nawab Hussain (1977):
The Supreme Court held that the principle underlying explanation IV is that where the parties have had an opportunity of
controverting a matter that should be taken to be the same thing as if the matter had been controverted and decided.
Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P (1981)
The Supreme court held that the doctrine of res judicata codified under Section 11 of CPC is not exhaustive.

Conclusion

The principle of Res Judicata is a cornerstone of modern legal systems, ensuring the finality and consistency of judicial decisions. By
preventing the multiplicity of suits, it promotes judicial efficiency, protects parties from harassment, and upholds the integrity of the legal
process. Understanding its application and exceptions is essential for legal practitioners and scholars alike, as it underscores the
importance of finality in the pursuit of justice.

You might also like