Open Access Research Article
RES JUDICATA: AN ANALYSIS (By- C. Amirdhavarshini)
Published Paper
Article Details
RES JUDICATA: AN ANALYSIS
Authored By- C. Amirdhavarshini
Sastra Deemed University
Table Of Contents
How do
we determine whether a person can bring a lawsuit again? Under what
circumstances can an individual file a suit once again?
Accordingly, this article deals with the concept of Res Judicata
under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which addresses the
aforesaid issues. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India recently issued a comment about the Res Judicata doctrine. The Court
has ruled that Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure does
not apply to this doctrine as a reason to reject a plaint. This has spawned an
engaging discussion about the determination of Res Judicata in the legal
community, making it an important subject to research in relation to the CPC.
This article therefore will throw lights on the legal standing on Res Judicata.
Section 11 of the CPC
incorporates the notion of Res Judicata. It's a Latin word. It signifies "a thing or a matter adjudicated."
It states that when a question has previously been decided, no court would have
the authority to hear neither a new suit nor new matters that have
already been resolved in the previous litigation among the same parties. As a
result, if an appropriate authority decides on a problem regarding the
same parties as in the prior matter, the parties could not initiate a
new suit requesting the court to rule on the subject that was previously
decided in the former litigation. Res Judicata also acts as an affirmative
defence in a lawsuit on the same claim, or any other claim stemming from the
same transaction or set of transactions that may have occurred.[1]
One among the
earliest concepts in human history is the Rest Judicata doctrine. As ancient as
the law itself, res judicata is. The Latin phrase for the theory of Res
Judicata is "Res judicata pro veritate
accipitur." Several ancient legal systems all have roots in the
theory of Res Judicata. According to ancient Hindu Law, the word "previous
judgement" or "Purva Nyaya"
was used by Muslim and Hindu attorneys to refer res judicata. In United States
the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy provision prevents anyone from being
put on a second trial after the matter has been decided.
Then the Seventh Amendment to the United
States Constitution is where the concept of res judicata first appeared with
proper legal force. It speaks to the validity of verdicts in civil jury trials.
Except under extremely particular circumstances, a civil trial verdict made by
one court cannot be modified by another. The concept of Res Judicata
was adopted in England. In the beginning, England courts used foreign
resemblances, but after revision, they created their own concept of Res
Judicata. Then the common law's Res Judicata theory was incorporated into
Indian law through Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. After the Civil Procedure
Code, Administrative Law also recognised the res judicata's application.
After that, additional legislation and Acts recognised it, and the idea of res
judicata began to spread across the Indian Legal System.
Three Roman maxims
serve as the basis for the principle of Res Judicata:
- ‘Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa’ - This
phrase indicates that no one should be troubled twice for the same reason;
- ‘Interest republicae ut sit finis litium’ - This
phrase implies that it is in the state's best interests for the legal
dispute to be resolved, and
- ‘Re judicata pro veritate occipitur’ - This
phrase says that the court's decision should be recognised as being
binding.
Res judicata's
preconditions include:
- a court's or
tribunal's competent ruling
- which is
final and conclusive
- any
judgement rendered on the merits
- a fair trial
- Whether a
prior choice was good or wrong is unimportant.
Res judicata, which
prohibits the proceedings of any lawsuit on an issue or a point already
decided, is covered by Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, Section
300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, Section 26 of the General
Clauses Act of 1897, and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India of 1950.
What Is RES Judicata?
The res judicata
concept aims to encourage the impartial and fair administration of justice and
to guard against the exploitation of the legal system. When a litigant wants to
bring a future lawsuit on the same subject after receiving a decision in an earlier
case involving the same parties, the doctrine of res judicata is applicable.
This holds true not just for the particular claims filed during the first
instance, as well as in numerous jurisdictions for claims which may have been
brought at the same suit.
The concept of res
judicata is described in Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorijin Debi[2]
as, “The principle of res judicata is
based on the need of giving a finality of judicial decisions, it shall not be
adjudicated again. Primarily it applies as between past litigation and future
litigation. When a matter on question of facts law has been decided between two
parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no
appeal was taken to a higher court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no
appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding
between same parties to canvass the matter again.”
It is significant to
reiterate that once a writ appeal has been filed with either the High Court or
Supreme Court and has been rejected there on merits, a subsequent
writ regarding the same cause of action cannot be filed in a court with similar
cause of action.[3] In Lal
Chand v Radha Krishnan[4],
the Hon’ble Supreme court stated that After the verdict is made, judges
who presented with a case that is strikingly identical to the previous
decision will use the res judicata doctrine to preserve the original decision's
effect. It would also make sure that identical cases involving the same parties
don't result in multiple judgments being rendered. Also in the case of Mahesh
Kumar Joshi v. Madan Singh Negi[5],
it was held as “This doctrine in
substance means that an issue or a point decided and having attained finality
should not be allowed to be re-opened and re-agitated twice over.”
Section 11 of Civil
Procedure Code enumerates that, “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.”[6]
The term of
"former suit" as used in Section 11 is clarified in Explanation 1 of
that section. The term "previous suits" in this context refers to any
lawsuits that have been resolved before the one in issue, regardless of when it
was first filed. The evaluation of a court's competence is covered in
Explanation 2. Again dealing with the issue of a prior lawsuit, Explanation 3
specifies that the prior lawsuit must be stated by one party and disputed by
the other. Explanation 4 addresses the subject matter and specifies that any
issue that has already been raised as a defence in the prior lawsuit qualifies
as an issue in that lawsuit. This is called as “Constructive Res Judicata”. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab
Hussain[7],
M was a sub-inspector who was fired from D.I.G. He disputed the
termination decision in the High Court. He claimed that he was not given a
reasonable opportunity to be heard prior to the order being issued. The claim,
nonetheless, was denied, and the case was rejected. He filed another suit,
claiming that he was selected by the I.G.P. and had no authority to fire him.
The defendant claimed that constructive res judicata precluded the complaint.
According to
Explanation 5, every remedy sought but not granted amounts to rejection or
refusal. According to Explanation 6, when someone starts a legal action
involving a public right, everyone who has a stake in that right is regarded to
be making a claim on behalf of the person who started the lawsuit. This is
called as a ‘Representative Suit’.
The application of the Res Judicata concept to the implementation of a decree
is explained in Explanation 7. According to Explanation 8, the concept of Res
judicata will be used in cases when a prior court loses the ability to consider
a future lawsuit because of a limitation relating to its jurisdiction.
Moreover, the res judicata concept is a procedural law but not a
substantive one. It has no impact over the court's jurisdiction.[8]
Under Section 11 of
the CPC, the Doctrine of Res Judicata is only applicable under particular
circumstances. For Res Judicata to get effective, the following
requirements need to be satisfied,
- The same
parties or their agents must file two lawsuits.
- The very
same cause title must be used for subsequent legal proceedings.
- The subject
in dispute must directly and significantly be the subject of both
the lawsuits, and it must be similar.
- One of the
lawsuits must be final and have already been decided. When a case is still
for appeal, has not reached finality, and is still in dispute, the rule of
res judicata does not apply. [9]
- To give the
relief requested in the second complaint, the court that resolved the
earlier matter must be competent. In those cases where an order was
made without proper authority, the concept will not apply.[10]
The Apex Court ruled
in Ragho
Prasad Gupta v. Krishna Poddar[11]
that a simple expression of opinion on a non-issue subject cannot serve as
res judicata.
The Doctrine of Res
Judicata seeks to establish an equilibrium among the two opposite extremes. One
pit ensures an effective judicial system that gives final decisions with
precision and avoids the injustice of a respondent being forced to defend
identical claim or legal problem many times. From the other perspective, it
safeguards the claimant's interest in having problems and claims handled
thoroughly and equitably. Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code does not
limit the scope of the Res Judicata. Res Judicata is a legal theory that
applies to administrative law, constitutional law, and criminal law. It also
applies to other pieces of law and acts. Sir Lawerence Jenkins recognised the
rule of Res Judicata in the case of Sheoprasad Singh v. Ramnandan Prasad Singh[12] as
“the rule...while finding on ancient
precedent is commanded by a wisdom which is for all time.”
The court said in the
case of Daryao vs. the State of UP[13] that
“there would be no end to litigation and
no security for any individual; the rights of the person are implicated in the
endless confusion and tremendous injustice done under the cover of the law.”
The doctrine of
res judicata include claim and issue preclusion. Collateral estoppel is
another name for issue preclusion. After a final decision on the merits is
rendered in civil action, the parties cannot sue each other again. For example,
if an appellant succeeds or fails a lawsuit in case A, he will most likely
be unable to challenge the respondent once more in case B relying on the exact
grounds and occurrences. Even if the grounds and situational factors were the
same in a different court. In contrast, issue preclusion bans the relitigation
of legal questions that have previously been decided by the judges as part of
another case. In Gulam Abbas v. State of Uttar Pradesh[14],
the scope of res judicata was determined. The court used the rules as
evidence in this case as a plea to an issue that had already been tried in an
earlier case. This case was difficult to decide because the judges needed to
use res judicata. It was ruled that “res
judicata is not exhaustive, and that even if the topic is not explicitly
covered by the section's provisions, it would be deemed a case of res judicata
on general principles.”
The “last in time” rule is used when a court
does not follow Res Judicata and issues a different decision on the same claim
or problem, and if the third court is presented with the same case. It has an
impact on the subsequent decision and is irrelevant if the outcome was
different the second time. The court must determine how to apply the earlier
case and whether to recognise it at all. Normally, it is the role of the
parties to the lawsuit to bring the prior case to the judge's notice.
- Devilal Modi
vs. Sales Tax Officer[15]:
B contested the legality of an order of assessment made in
accordance with Article 226. The petition was rejected on merits. The
appeal against the order was likewise rejected by the Supreme Court. B
once more filed a writ case in the same High Court challenging the same
evaluation ruling. The High Court dismissed the petition this time.
Accordingly the Apex Court held that the res judicata principle
precluded the petition.
- Avtar Singh
v. Jagjit Singh[16]:
A initiated a civil lawsuit, and B responded with a claim
questioning the court's arbitration. The complaint was handed back to the
plaintiff for the presentation after the objection was upheld. When A
attended the Revenue Court, he was informed that the Revenue Court lacked
jurisdiction and returned the petition. A filed a lawsuit in the Civil
Court once more. B argued that the res judicata theory precluded the
lawsuit.
- Mathura
Prasad v. Dossabai N.B. Jeejeebhoy[17]:
According to the ruling, res judicata applies to the parties to the
prior case and prevents them from bringing new claims in collateral
actions. A competent court's ruling typically serves as res judicata, even
when it comes to legal issues. A legal issue, however, will not serve as
res judicata if it is unrelated to the events that gave rise to the right.
A decision has already been changed by a power when the legal theory or
the cause of action have changed. Res judicata will not apply in the
following process, and the ruling will be deemed lawful.
Exception To The Doctrine
The exceptions to the
doctrine of Res Judicata are:
- If the
decision was acquired via deception or fraud on the court, or if all of
the processes were conducted in accordance with a specific legislation.
- Not all of
the judgment's findings would be considered final. Res judicata would only
apply to issues that were "directly" and
"substantially" resolved in the prior lawsuit.
- If the
appeal of the judgement and decree of the court below is still pending in
the appellate court, the decision made by that court cannot be regarded as
final and the conclusions made therein would not serve as res judicata if
it had not been made on the basis of merit.
- Whenever the
judgement is not a reasoned decision.
- Res
judicata is not applicable in cases where the issue has not already been
resolved on the merits.
- Criminal
cases when the entire procedure was started unlawfully and without
jurisdiction are not covered by the Res Judicata concept.
- It does
not apply when a dispute is only a legal one.
- It does
not apply in dismissal in limine or dismissal by default situations.
Res judicata does
not apply in matters involving income tax or sales tax. In Instalment Supply Private Limited
v. Union of India[18],
the Hon’ble Supreme Court determined that each year's assessment is final for
that year and does not apply to succeeding years. Since it only determines the
tax for that specific time frame. In the matter of P. Bandhopadhya and others v.
Union of India and others[19],
it was held that the res judicata does not apply in that case since
it was a Public Interest Litigation. There is no need to extend the
principle of public interest litigation because the major goal of res judicata
is to put an end to litigation. The dismissal of a special leave petition in
limine is not binding on the parties. A new petition under Article 32 or Article
226 of the Constitution will not be filed.
In Beliram
and Brothers v. Chaudhari Mohammed Afzal[20],
it was determined that a minor’s claim could not be launched by the minors'
guardian. Nevertheless, it was brought in coordination with the defendants, and
the order acquired was gained via deception under the Indian Evidence Act of
1872, therefore it will not be considered res judicata. A complaint was filed
in the Court in the case of Talluri Venkata Seshayya vs Thadikonda
Kotiswara Rao [21]
to have certain temples referred to be public temples. A similar complaint was
rejected by the Court two years earlier, and the plaintiff maintained that the
prior litigation's plaintiffs were negligent, and so the law of res judicata
could not be applied. However, the Privy Council stated that the records were
withheld, implying that the petitioner in the previous complaint had good
faith. It was held that a party to a lawsuit may renounce the res judicata
plea in the case of P.C. Ray and Company Private Limited v. Union of India[22].
If a defendant fails to claim the defence of res judicata, it is renounced. The
idea of res judicata is procedural, and either party may waive the res judicata
plea. The court may dismiss the res judicata question since it was not
presented in the pleadings.
Sections 10 and 11 of
the Civil Procedure Code is concerned with Res Sub Judicata and Res
Judicata, respectively. The former applies to current legal actions, whereas
the latter applies to topics that have already been decided. The doctrine of
Res Sub Judice prohibits two parallel cases between the same parties, i.e., it
prohibits the trial of an action while the matter in the prior suit is waiting
for determination. The Doctrine of Res Judicata, in contrast, prevents a second
trial of the same matter involving the similar litigants.
Conclusion
When understanding the
doctrine of Res Judicata, it is critical to remember that the primary goal of
this principle is to preclude multiplicity of suits, to ensure that the
court's resources are not misused or wasted, and to prevent injustice by preventing
the recovery of damages twice for the same matter. Perpetual litigation would
be detrimental to society as a whole. It might be seen as something that
prevents either party from turning back the clock throughout the course of the
lawsuit. The Res Judicata Doctrine must be handled with caution. We must
recognise that this idea has a broad reach and that its application is always
changing and evolving.
Article Information
RES JUDICATA: AN ANALYSIS (By- C. Amirdhavarshini)
Authors: C. Amirdhavarshini
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2022/09/07
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.