1

THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

The doctrine of Res Judicata is governed by Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908
and its primary purpose is to prevent the re-litigation of matters that have already been
adjudicated upon by a competent court. The leading case on Res Judicata is the Duchess of
Kingston's case, which established two key principles: first, that judgments from courts of
concurrent jurisdiction are conclusive between the same parties on the same matter; and second,
that judgments from courts of exclusive jurisdiction are conclusive on matters that come
incidentally in question in another court. However, judgments are not conclusive on matters that
were collaterally or incidentally in issue, even if they were within the court's jurisdiction. The
principle of Res Judicata, as explained in Section 11, is based on public policy considerations
aimed at achieving finality in litigation and preventing the harassment of individuals with the
same dispute. The rule is not confined to technical aspects such as the competence of the court or
the nature of relief sought but is founded on the need for the finality of decisions.
To determine if a proceeding is barred by Res Judicata, several factors must be examined,
including the form or competence of the court, the parties involved, the matters in issue, and the
finality of the decision. The key test is whether the subsequent claim arises from the same cause
of action as the earlier suit, and whether the plaintiff had the opportunity to seek relief in the
former proceedings. The cause of action refers to the grounds set forth in the plaint or
application, not the relief sought, or the defense raised. Section 11 also emphasizes the principle
that "there must be an end to lawsuits" and "no man should be vexed twice for the same cause."
The decision on whether a judgment is conclusive does not depend on its correctness but on
whether it resolved a matter directly in issue. Res Judicata operates as a bar to litigation when a
matter has already been adjudicated, even if the parties are the same or the issue is similar, unless
there is a valid reason to set aside the judgment, such as fraud or collusion.
OBJECTIVES OF RES JUDICATA:
This doctrine is based on three maxims which are as follows:
 Nemo debt bis vexari pro una et eadem causa which means no man should be vexed
twice for the same cause.
 Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means it is in the interest of the State there
should be an end to a litigation; and
 Res Judicata pro veritate occipitur which means judicial accepted as correct.
SECTION MANDATORY
Section 11 of the CPC is mandatory, and a litigant can only avoid its provisions under certain
exceptions provided by Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, specifically in cases of fraud or
collusion. The Supreme Court has ruled that a plea of Res Judicata concerns the court's
jurisdiction and that a finding in favor of the party raising it will oust the jurisdiction of the court.
If a party wins a case but does not appeal the finding, the same issue cannot be raised in a
subsequent litigation. Therefore, the rule of Res Judicata applies even in situations where a
 2

party's claim in the second suit is similar, but no opportunity was given to challenge the
correctness of the previous judgment.
RES JUDICATA AND ESTOPPEL
While Res Judicata is sometimes associated with estoppel, the two doctrines are distinct.
Estoppel prevents a person from contradicting their previous statements or actions to the
detriment of another party, while Res Judicata precludes a person from raising the same issue in
successive lawsuits. Res Judicata operates as an absolute bar to the reopening of an issue, while
estoppel only prevents a party from contradicting their prior position once litigation has
commenced. Res Judicata, as set out in Section 11, corresponds to the concept of "estoppel by
judgment" in English law and is intended to serve the public interest by ensuring finality in
litigation. For example, in matters of tax, a judgment that a property is not liable for tax in one
year does not prevent the government from taxing the property in subsequent years if the legal
basis for taxation has changed. The public interest in ensuring the correct tax is paid outweighs
the principle of Res Judicata in such cases.
ESSENTIALS OF RES JUDICATA
I- The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same as the
matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually or constructively in the
former suit.
II- The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between parties under
whom they or any of them claim.
III- The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit.
IV- The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the
subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.
V. If an issue has been directly and substantially decided in a previous case by a competent court,
it cannot be raised again in a later case, even if the previous court had limited jurisdiction and the
later court has broader jurisdiction.
CONDITIONS OF RES JUDICATA
It is not every matter decided in a former suit that can be pleaded as Res Judicata in a subsequent
suit. To constitute a matter Res Judicata, the following conditions must concur:
Condition I: Matter Directly and Substantially in Issue
Matters in issue may be classified as follows:
Matters directly and substantially in issue
Matters collaterally or incidentally in issue
a) Cause of Action Distinguished from Matter Directly and Substantially in Issue
 3

The expression used in Section 2 of the Code of 1859 was 'cause of action.' As to that expression,
their Lordships of the Privy Council said in Krishna Behari Roy v Brojeswari Chowdranee: "The
expression 'cause of action' cannot be taken in its literal and most restricted sense, but however
that may be, by the general law where a material issue has been tried and determined between the
same parties in a proper suit and in a competent court as to the status of one of them in relation to
the other, it cannot, in their opinion, be again tried in another suit between them." The expression
'matter directly and substantially in issue' was first introduced in the corresponding Section 13 of
the Code of 1877. The law is accordingly well-settled that to invoke the bar of Res Judicata, it is
not necessary that the cause of action in the two suits should be identical. It is only required that
the matters directly and substantially in issue should be the same in both suits. If the cause of
action is the same both in the former and subsequent proceedings, then the decision on an issue
of law will be Res Judicata between the same parties. If the cause of action is not the same in
both proceedings, it will not operate as Res Judicata. When the law has, since earlier days, been
altered by a competent authority, that will not operate as Res Judicata.
(b) Directly and Substantially in Issue:
It is not enough to constitute a matter Res Judicata that it was in issue in the former suit. It is
further necessary that it must be in issue directly and substantially. A matter cannot be said to
have been 'directly and substantially' in issue in a suit unless it was alleged by one party and
denied or admitted, either expressly or by the other. It is not enough that the matter was alleged
by one party. A matter in issue is the matter claimed by one and denied by the other. The claim of
right in its very inception depends upon the proven facts and the application of the relevant law.
A matter in issue may be an issue of fact, an issue of law, or a mixed issue of fact and law. An
issue of fact or mixed issue decided by a competent court is finally decided between the parties
and cannot be reopened in another proceeding. When it is said that a previous decision is Res
Judicata, it means the right claimed has already been adjudicated upon and cannot again be
placed in contest between the same parties. The decision on law cannot be dissociated from the
decision on facts on which the right is founded. Thus, a decision on law will not be Res Judicata
unless based on the actual matter in issue.
Res Judicata is a rule of procedure and cannot change the law applicable to the parties. If a
plaintiff sues in a revenue court which returns the plaint for lack of jurisdiction and does not
appeal against the revenue court's order, he cannot again sue in the civil court on the same cause
of action. Likewise, where a person could not claim relief in the earlier suit as per the law then in
force, they are not debarred by Res Judicata from claiming that relief subsequently.
The word 'substantial' means of importance and value. A matter is substantially in issue if it is
important and valuable for the decision of the main proceeding. However, it is not necessary for
a matter to be raised as a distinct issue to be directly and substantially in issue; it is sufficient if it
was in issue in substance. Courts in India should be guided by the substance of the issue within
the limits allowed by law, not merely by technical considerations of form. For example, a
subsequent suit on the same mutual account between A and B for the same year will be barred as
Res Judicata. Even if a petitioner was not a party to previous petitions filed to object to a refinery
 4

project, these proceedings were in the public interest for environmental protection, meaning the
earlier decision will create the principle of constructive Res Judicata.
Likewise, an issue will be Res Judicata if an appellate court judgment shows the issue was
treated as material and was decided, even if the decree passed only affirms the lower court's
decision. Similarly, if the parties treat an issue as material and invite the court to decide on it,
that issue will be Res Judicata.
The previous suit's decision on whether a person acquired the status of an occupant under the
Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act bars the landlord from re-agitating the same
issue in a subsequent application under the Tenancy Act. A decree for the recovery of a loan by
the sale of mortgaged property, where the question of the appellant’s status as a tenant or licensee
was directly and substantially in issue, operates as Res Judicata between the parties.
In another example, a suit involving the substitution of receptacles by an administrator does not
operate as Res Judicata in a subsequent suit regarding the separability of religious duties
assigned to sevaks. Similarly, an earlier injunction suit involving a plea of benami does not bar
the same plea in a subsequent partition suit, where the defendant was not a party to the earlier
suit. A judgment regarding jurisdiction over mortgaged property in a Bihar court does not
prevent the judgment-debtor from agitating the question of jurisdiction in a later execution
proceeding.
A mere expression of opinion on a non-issue cannot operate as Res Judicata. The decision must
involve facts and the application of law to those facts. A judicial decision, whether right or
wrong, binds the parties unless it relates to jurisdictional matters.
(c) Matter Collaterally or Incidentally in Issue:
Every suit must involve a matter "directly and substantially" in issue, though it may also involve
a matter "collaterally or incidentally" in issue. For a matter to be considered Res Judicata, it must
be in issue both "directly and substantially" in the suit under trial, and it must have been in issue
in a former suit, either "directly and substantially," or "collaterally or incidentally." For instance,
the question of whether a person should be admitted as the legal representative of a deceased
plaintiff to continue the suit is considered collateral to the suit. A finding on an issue must be
distinguished from an opinion on the effect of a piece of evidence. In a case where the lessor
alleged the termination of the lease in an earlier suit but withdrew the suit, the subsequent suit for
possession, based on a new cause of action, did not operate as Res Judicata. Additionally, a
finding about the disruption of a joint family, recorded in an earlier court decision, became Res
Judicata in a later suit where partition was sought. However, where the earlier proceeding did not
decide the question of heirship, it is not Res Judicata. In cases involving eviction orders, where
an appeal was pending and the tenant died, the issue of whether permission was needed to
execute the decree did not operate as Res Judicata.
(d) Distinction between Matter 'Directly and Substantially' in Issue and Matter
'Collaterally or Incidentally' in Issue:
 5

The leading case on this subject, Barrs v Jackson, explains that every suit must involve matters
for which relief is claimed, and these matters are considered "directly and substantially" in issue.
A matter is directly and substantially in issue when relief is claimed for it in a suit. For example,
in a rent dispute where rent is due, the rent issue is directly in issue. However, in cases where a
suit involves multiple claims, such as a declaration of title and a claim for rent, both matters are
directly in issue. In contrast, a matter that is not the subject of a claim for relief but is raised for
the purpose of adjudicating a claim can be "collaterally or incidentally" in issue. For instance, in
a suit for a declaration of title and rent, the issue of rent may be directly in issue, but any issue
about the genuineness of a document, though raised, may be collateral. Whether a matter is
directly or collaterally in issue depends on the specific facts and whether it is necessary to decide
it in order to adjudicate on the principal issue.
(e) Examination of Pleadings and Judgment:
To determine whether a matter was directly and substantially in issue in a former suit, one must
refer to the plaint, the written statement, the issues, and the judgment. Even if a point was not
raised properly in the plaint, if both parties contested the matter during the suit, the decision on
that matter will operate as Res Judicata. It is not necessary for the issue to have been explicitly
raised in the pleadings; it can emerge during the hearing based on the stance taken by the parties.
For instance, in cases where an earlier suit has not addressed a specific issue but both parties
joined issues on it, the decision made will operate as Res Judicata. The decree alone does not
suffice; it is the judgment, where the findings on the issues are recorded, that is critical.
Moreover, the judgment is admissible under Section 40 of the Evidence Act.
Condition II- The Same Parties or Parties Under Whom Any of Them Claim
The doctrine of Res Judicata prevents the same issue from being litigated multiple times when it
has been conclusively decided by a competent court. Defendants can invoke this doctrine if the
same matter was decided in an earlier suit, as seen where tenants claimed Res Judicata based on
a trial court’s earlier decision about their status under a plaintiff's dispute. Section 38(B) of the
UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960, however, clarifies that prior findings
before its commencement do not bar retrials under the Act's amended provisions. The Supreme
Court affirmed that for Res Judicata to apply, all facts and pleadings from the earlier case must
be presented in the subsequent proceedings. Judgments are admissible as evidence under Section
40 of the Evidence Act but must include findings on the issues, not just the decree.
The principle applies strictly between the same parties in identical capacities. For instance, an
earlier dismissal of a suit for rent due to failure to prove title does not bar a later suit for property
declaration if the parties differ. Similarly, a municipality’s resolution challenged by one market
group does not bind another group not party to the earlier case. However, when the same parties
are involved, and the earlier judgment has attained finality, they cannot reopen the matter.
Instances arise where a decree binds beyond the immediate parties, such as injunctions involving
property rights, though these must align with ownership and possession principles. Res Judicata
does not extend to parties not represented adequately in earlier litigation, such as guarantors in a
separate suit or those without authorization in the prior case. Furthermore, certain procedural
 6

orders, like inquiries into mesne profits, do not constitute Res Judicata as they lack final
adjudication.
(a)Res Judicata Between Co-Defendants
Res Judicata may also apply between co-defendants when specific conditions are met. These
include a conflict of interest between the co-defendants, the necessity of resolving this conflict to
grant relief to the plaintiff, and a final decision on the issue. For example, in a suit where A sues
B and C, if adjudicating a matter between B and C is necessary for resolving A’s claim, that
decision may bind B and C in subsequent litigation. However, if the issue between co-defendants
is incidental to the plaintiff's relief, Res Judicata does not apply.
Courts approach Res Judicata between co-defendants cautiously, especially in cases involving
fraud or collusion, as these vitiate judicial proceedings. The absence of a bona fide conflict or
lack of necessity to resolve it in the earlier suit precludes applying Res Judicata. Even if a co-
defendant did not appear in the earlier case, Res Judicata may apply if it is shown they had notice
of the issue. When these conditions are absent, the judgment might only serve as evidence rather
than binding authority. For example, in cases of joint tenancy, the absence of conflicting defenses
in a prior suit prevents its findings from barring subsequent suits between joint tenants.
The doctrine emphasizes finality in litigation, discouraging multiple suits over the same issue
while ensuring fairness, particularly concerning parties who were not adequately represented or
involved in the prior case.
Condition III: Litigating Under the Same Title
The third condition of Res Judicata requires that the parties in the subsequent suit must have
litigated under the same title in the former suit. The term "same title" implies the same capacity
under which the parties were litigating. For instance, if an heir of a deceased mortgagor sues for
redemption of a mortgage, representing the estate of the deceased, and obtains a decree, a
subsequent suit by the mortgagee against the same individual, now acting as the executor of the
deceased's estate, for the sale of the mortgaged property would be barred by Res Judicata.
Similarly, if a daughter-in-law loses her right to adopt in a suit and adopts the same boy later,
relying on a subsequent Privy Council decision, a fresh suit to establish the adoption would also
be barred, as she litigated on the same title in both suits. However, a verdict against an individual
litigating in one capacity does not preclude them from litigating in another distinct capacity, as
these are considered different legal identities.
Where trustees of a public charity fail in a suit to eject a trespasser, they can file a subsequent
suit as members of the public with the consent of the Advocate-General. A decree against the
trustee of a temple regarding property ownership operates as Res Judicata in a suit by the
temple's worshippers if the title litigated remains the same. However, the dismissal of a suit
involving individuals in their personal capacity does not bar a later suit involving the same
parties in their representative capacity. For instance, a decree against persons sued as shebaits of
a temple would not operate as Res Judicata in a subsequent suit where they are sued as executors
under a will.
 7

The dismissal of a son’s suit for maintenance against his father does not bar a subsequent suit
against his eldest brother for maintenance charged on certain lands. Additionally, where a court
rules that a third party lacks title to a property in a suit between two parties, this finding does not
operate as Res Judicata in a later suit where one of the original parties claims the property as the
third party’s heir. A judgment does not operate as Res Judicata if a fresh title is acquired under
Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act.
In the context of mortgage, a mortgagee in possession does not lose their status as a mortgagee
simply because they refuse to return possession after the mortgagor deposits the amount due in
court. For instance, if A sues B for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage and deposits the
mortgage amount in court, B’s refusal to accept the amount and deliver possession does not make
B a trespasser. If A later sues B for mesne profits from the date of deposit to the recovery of
possession, the suit would be barred, as the earlier suit was between the same parties litigating
under the same title as mortgagor and mortgagee.
The phrase "between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same
title" also applies where a subsequent litigant succeeds to the position of the earlier litigant,
either through inheritance or specific succession rules, such as saranjam or vatan estates. A
decree against a saranjamdar or vatandar may bind their heirs or successors under the doctrine of
Res Judicata, regardless of the form of succession.
Condition IV: Court Competent to Try Such Subsequent Suit or the Suit in Which Such
Issue has been Subsequently Raised
For a decision in a former suit to operate as Res Judicata in a subsequent suit, it is imperative that
the court which rendered the decision must have been competent to adjudicate upon the
subsequent suit or the suit in which the issue arises. This requirement focuses on the
jurisdictional competence of the earlier court at the time of making its decision. However, the
technical or subjective competence of the earlier court in adjudicating certain matters does not
detract from the application of the general doctrine of Res Judicata. Explanation VIII, introduced
by the Amendment Act of 1976, expands the applicability of Section 11 by clarifying that an
issue decided by a court of limited jurisdiction can operate as Res Judicata in subsequent
proceedings, even if the earlier court was not competent to try the subsequent suit in its entirety.
This expansion ensures that decisions by courts with restricted jurisdiction, if otherwise final and
valid, bind the parties in subsequent litigation.
(a) Court of Competent Jurisdiction
For the doctrine to apply, the court deciding the earlier matter must have been competent not
only to adjudicate the issue but also to try the subsequent suit in which the issue is raised. This
principle is drawn from precedents like Gokul Mandar v. Pudmanund, where it was emphasized
that the earlier decision binds parties only when rendered by a court with jurisdiction over both
the issue and the subsequent suit. Even erroneous judgments by courts with proper jurisdiction
can bind the parties. The broader interpretation in cases like Maqsood Ali v. Hunter allowed
courts to divide causes of action into components, where decisions on some parts would bind
subsequent suits. However, this interpretation conflicted with stricter literal readings, as noted in
 8

cases like Gulab Bai v. Manphool Bai. Explanation VIII reconciles this by allowing decisions by
courts of limited jurisdiction to operate as Res Judicata regardless of whether they were
competent to try the whole subsequent suit.
(i) Where the Court Which Decided the Former Suit is One of 'Exclusive' Jurisdiction
When a court of exclusive jurisdiction adjudicates a matter, its decision bars subsequent trials of
the same matter in other courts. Such courts handle specific subject areas, and their judgments
are binding unless challenged for exceptional reasons like fraud.
(ii) Where the Court Which Decided the Former Suit was a Court of Concurrent
Jurisdiction
When the earlier court is one of concurrent jurisdiction, the decision operates as Res Judicata
only if the court was competent to try the subsequent suit. Otherwise, the doctrine does not
apply.
(iii) Where the Court Which Decided the Matter in Issue was a Court of Limited
Jurisdiction
In cases involving courts of limited jurisdiction, an issue decided within their competence
operates as Res Judicata. It is no longer necessary for such a court to have been competent to try
the entire subsequent suit. This provision under Explanation VIII reinforces the doctrine’s
applicability, ensuring decisions by such courts are binding.
In summary, for a prior decision to act as Res Judicata, the court must fall into one of three
categories: exclusive jurisdiction, concurrent jurisdiction with competence over the subsequent
suit, or limited jurisdiction with competence over the issue raised. Courts of limited jurisdiction,
as clarified by Explanation VIII, play a significant role in extending the doctrine’s reach, binding
parties to their decisions even when not competent to try the entire subsequent suit.
CONDITION V. Matter Must Have Been Heard and Finally Decided on the Former Suit
(a)The Decision in the Former Suit Must Have Been on the Merits
For a matter to be considered "heard and finally decided," the decision in the former suit must
have been on the merits of the case. Dismissals based on technical grounds, such as lack of
jurisdiction, default of the plaintiff’s appearance, non-joinder or misjoinder of parties, improper
valuation, or failure to pay court fees, do not qualify as decisions on the merits. Similarly,
dismissals for procedural issues, such as the failure to produce required documentation like a
probate or succession certificate, or dismissals as "not pressed" or "infructuous," do not operate
as Res Judicata. For instance, where a claim is withdrawn based on assurances from the
respondent, the decision does not amount to a rejection of the claim, and the matter can be raised
in the future. Decisions under specific provisions, such as Section 69 of the Partnership Act or
summary inquiries under Order 22 Rule 5, do not constitute Res Judicata either. Additionally,
dismissals due to settlement out of court or based on new causes of action arising after the
original suit do not bar subsequent claims.
 9

Some notable scenarios further clarify the doctrine's application. For example, if a party fails to
object to the reconstitution of a firm in consecutive arbitration references, they cannot raise it
later, as it is barred by constructive Res Judicata. Conversely, objections requiring evidence that
were not resolved in prior suits may still be maintainable. An ex parte decree, however, can
operate as Res Judicata, as can a dismissal in appeal when the appellate court decision becomes
final. The principle extends even to cases where partial findings do not conclusively determine
the issues or where different lines of challenge arise, such as in taxation or company law
proceedings.
(b) The Decision in the Former Suit Must Have Been Necessary to the Determination of
the Suit
A matter is not deemed "heard and finally decided" unless the findings were necessary for
determining the suit. If a finding was incidental or not central to the case's resolution, it cannot
have the authority of Res Judicata. For Res Judicata to apply, the issue must have been expressly
or impliedly decided as the basis of the decree, and the decision must be subject to appeal. The
right to appeal underpins the doctrine, emphasizing that only findings integral to the judgment
are binding.
For instance, if a suit is dismissed on technical grounds but includes an incidental adverse
finding against the defendant, that finding does not operate as Res Judicata in subsequent
proceedings. Conversely, findings against the plaintiff in a wholly dismissed suit can bar them
from re-litigating those issues. Courts also differentiate between substantive findings and
procedural dismissals; for example, a suit dismissed for lack of notice does not make subsequent
claims Res Judicata if the issue of notice is rectified.
For example, in a suit for eviction, a finding that the land was not classified as a particular type
of property does not bar re-litigation if the suit was dismissed for a different reason, such as lack
of notice to quit. Similarly, where a suit is dismissed as premature, subsequent suits addressing
the matured cause of action are maintainable, provided the earlier findings were not necessary
for the prior dismissal. These distinctions underscore that Res Judicata applies only to findings
critical to the determination of the original case.
CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA IN EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS
The principle of constructive Res Judicata applies even within execution proceedings under
specific conditions. If a judgment-debtor fails to raise a plea, such as limitation, during an earlier
stage of the execution proceedings, they cannot raise it subsequently, provided it does not
contravene statutory provisions. For instance, failure to contest the validity of a decree during
initial execution prevents objections in later stages. Similarly, objections to the attachment or
sale of property, once dismissed or abandoned, cannot be revisited in subsequent execution
stages unless the judgment-debtor had no prior opportunity to raise them. Moreover, orders
passed in execution proceedings, such as the sale of attached property, acquire finality if no
timely appeal or revision is filed, regardless of whether the executing court applied the law
erroneously.
 10

The principle extends to situations where the decree-holder or judgment-debtor fails to assert
specific claims or objections during earlier proceedings. However, exceptions exist when
addressing clerical mistakes, interest calculations, or payments under decrees amended by
statutory provisions like the Madras Agriculturists’ Relief Act. Generally, courts have upheld that
constructive Res Judicata applies to execution proceedings even if prior applications were
infructuous, provided the conditions of finality and adjudication are met. Furthermore, judgments
or findings regarding specific issues like interest, liability, or the nature of property in earlier
stages bind subsequent execution applications.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
Interlocutory orders within a suit hold binding authority over subsequent proceedings in the same
suit. For example, the Privy Council held in Ram Kirpal v. Run Kuari that decisions on issues
like validity, jurisdiction, or attachment before judgment become Res Judicata in later stages of
the same suit if decided on notice and merit. However, orders that do not resolve substantive
disputes, such as remands or stays of interim injunctions, lack the binding effect of Res Judicata.
Similarly, orders passed during arbitration or concerning jurisdiction, once finalized, preclude re-
litigation of those issues. For example, in Louis Dreyfus v. Arunachala, the Privy Council
confirmed that prior final orders concerning arbitration submissions prevent subsequent
challenges to the umpire’s jurisdiction.
Res Judicata principles ensure finality in interlocutory and execution proceedings, barring re-
litigation of issues that were or could have been decided earlier, thereby upholding judicial
efficiency and preventing repetitive disputes.
EXCEPTIONS TO RES JUDICATA:
There are certain exception were the courts overcame the Principle of Res Judicata that is the
tough previously the courts gave their judgement still the new suits were filed in the other courts
with the same facts and the same cause of action, where it allowed a party to attack the validity
of the original judgement, even outside the appeals, these exceptions are called as collateral
attacks are typically based on procedural or jurisdictional issues, based not on the wisdom of the
earlier courts 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 counsellor as a
matter of fairness.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN RELATION TO RES JUDICATA:
 11

In the case of Talluri Venkata Seshayya vs. Thadvikonda Kotiswara Rao, a suit was filed in the
Court for the purpose of declaring certain temples public temples and for setting aside alienation
of the 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 ffindinggross 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 the prior suit. There is 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 Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was held
that the writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court are not inter-party disputes and have been
raised by way of public interest litigation and the controversy before the court is as to whether
for social safety and for creating a hazardless environment for the people to live in, mining in the
area must be permitted or stopped. Even if it is said that there was a final order, in a dispute of
this type, it would be difficult to entertain the plea of Res Judicata.
These writ petitions were filed as early as 1983 more than three years before the enactment came
into force. The principle of Res Judicata does not apply strictly to public interest litigations. The
procedural laws are not fully applicable to public interest litigation cases. Where the prior public
interest relates to illegal mining, subsequent public interest litigation to protect the environment
is not barred.
CONCLUSION:
One of the first and highest duties of all Courts is to take care that the act of the Court does no
injury to the suitors. It has been said that an act of the Court shall harm none (actus curiae
neminem gravabit). All courts, therefore, are bound to take care that their acts do not cause harm
or injury to suitors. In the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, the Supreme Court ordered the
withdrawal of a case against the appellant pending in the Court of a Special Judge and
transferred it to the High Court of Bombay. A preliminary objection was raised by the appellant
against the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. It was, however, negative by the Court. The
appellant then approached the Supreme Court. It was contended that the direction was contrary
to law and could not have been issued. The argument of the respondent was Res Judicata.
Allowing the appeal and recalling the earlier order, the Apex Court observed that the direction
was violative of the fundamental rights of the appellant and no rule of Res Judicata would apply
to such a situation.