Open Access Research Article
RES JUDICATA: THE BACKBONE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE BY: MS. MAARIA LAKDAWALA
Published Paper
Article Details
RES JUDICATA: THE BACKBONE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
AUTHORED BY:
MS. MAARIA LAKDAWALA (A017)
SUBJECT: CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE
BBA.LLB [HONS],
3RD YEAR
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like
to express my deep and sincere gratitude to Prof. Akshay Bavare, who guided me throughout
the whole process of writing this paper. I Thank him for giving me an
opportunity to research on the present topic and for answering any doubts or queries
I have had throughout the course of the research.
Thank you,
MAARIA LAKDAWALA A017.
In the view of present scenario of our Judiciary and
the backlog of cases on our Judicial Institutions,
Sec 11 of Code of civil Procedure 1908 is nothing less than a knight with
shining armour. The notion of Sec11
is clear, it serves as a clear guideline and prevents institution of repetition and frivolous suits. This research paper aims to especially portray how the above mentioned section is the back bone of civil procedure. This
paper focusses on the landmark judgements
that shaped and expanded its scope, the elaboration and explanation of sec 11,
the application and exceptions to the doctrine of Res Judicata. This
paper additionally briefly looks into its origins
and the principles it’s based on for better,
clear and concise understanding of the Doctrine.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
·
To understand the concept of Res Judicata.
·
To elaborate and understand the explanations in sec 11
of Civil Procedure Code.
·
To analyse landmark cases in relation to applicability
and exception of the doctrine of Res Judicata.
The English
Common Law System gave birth to the concept of res judicata. Res judicata was originally
included into the Common Law and then to Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The principle
of Res Judicata comes under Sec 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. Res Judicata is
also known as “rule of conclusiveness of judgement”. It is a principle of public
policy to somewhere put an end to litigation. It is a bar for litigation, in
layman’s language when a previous suit between same parties for the same
subject matter has been decided by a competent court then the same suit cannot be
raised in a new suit under new litigation. The judgement of Competent Court can
attain finality. This principle plays a role in administrative law as well as
it looks into how the judiciary works and helps into disposal of cases
efficiently. The aggrieved party may file false and frivolous suit to harass
and or harm the reputation of the other party, sec11 of Code of Civil Procedure
helps to block such overload of cases.
Sir
Lawrence Jennings - House of Lords- England stated Res Judicata is a
judicial creation and which enunciates that a
matter adjudged is taken
for truth.
The Latin Maxim “Res” is dispute and
“Judicata” is dispute and the literally translates to “a matter adjudged”. The term Res judicata is not mentioned in the Indian Constitution but Article
20 of the Indian Constitution states that a man shall not be tried for a
same offence again and again. This is the principle
of Double Jeopardy and here is the rationale of Res Judicata.
Doctrine of Res Judicata
is relied on 3 important maxims:
i.
Nemo
debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa -No man should be vexed for a same offence
twice.
ii.
Interest
republican ut sit finis lithium-That there shall be an end to litigation
iii.
Res
judicata pro veritate occipital -Judicial decisions must be accepted as correct.
These principles
are founded on the principle of justice, equity and good conscience.
According to ancient Hindu law, res judicata was previously referred to as
Purva Nyaya or previous judgement by
Hindu lawyers and Muslim jurists. This doctrine is also incorporated by U.S. Constitution in its seventh amendment.
The doctrine of Res-Judicata is being applied
in civil suits, arbitration proceeding, taxation matters, industrial adjudications, writ petitions,
administrative orders, interim orders, criminal proceedings etc. This doctrine is not exhaustive under Code of Civil Procedure,1908.
This Principle
of Res Judicata under Sec11 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 helps in understanding
whether a party is competent to file a suit, whether a party can file a suit
again or not, what are the conditions under which a party can file a suit again.
Ingredients of Res Judicata:
i.
Later Suits
Must Contain the Same Parties- In order to establish the rule of
Res- Judicata, the parties in a subsequent suit must be the same or between
the same parties
who had a claim.
ii.
The Suit's
Title Must Be the Same- Another crucial factor
is that the opposing parties' titles must be the
same in order to establish the rule
of Res-Judicata.
iii.
The Court has resolved
the case on the merits
and should be competent to try the case-the courts
should hear all parties on the merits and render a decision on the merits.
iv.
The
Disputed Subject-Matter Must Be the Same- The Disputed Subject-Matter Must Be the Same in Previous
and Subsequent Suits.
Example:
A Special Performance Suit is filed in 2008 and in 2020 a Special Performance
suit for the same contract is
files. The 2020 suit is decided earlier this decision will binding on the 1st suit by way of Res
Judicata.
In the Case of Gulam Abbas &Ors vs State of
U.P.[1] the
scope of res judicata was laid down clearly.
The rules were used as evidence in this case as a plea of an issue that had
already been tried in a previous
case. The judges had a tough time deciding this issue because they needed to use res judicata. It was decided
that res judicata is not exhaustive, and that even if the matter is not explicitly covered by the section's
provisions, it would be treated as a case of
res judicata based on general
principles
The doctrine of Res-Judicata is
used at various stages of a proceeding. In the case of Ajay Mohan v H.N. Rai[2] held that if the court issues
an interim order during the pendency of the matter,
it will serve as Res-Judicata in any subsequent suits. For example, once a
court has decided on the
maintainability of an action, or a question about a court's jurisdiction, it
will not be reopened in the same
proceedings. The aggrieved party's only option is to file an appeal in a higher
court of law against the lower court's
interim order.
Representative suits are those that are
brought in a representative capacity rather than a personal capacity. In the case of Ahmad Adam Sait v. M.E. Makhri[3],
it was held that where persons
litigate bona fide for the public good, all subsequent proceedings are
precluded by Res-Judicata.
Res-Judicata exists between Co-Plaintiffs
and Co-Defendants, exists just as
it does between Plaintiffs and
Defendants, on the grounds that there is a conflict of interest between Co-Plaintiffs or Co-Defendants. The Hon'ble Bench of the Supreme Court in
the case of Iftikar Ahmed and Syed Meharban
Ali[4],
held that if there is a conflict between plaintiffs and the matter is to be decided
in order to provide
relief to the Defendant, and the matter is further decided,
it will act as Res-Judicata between co-plaintiffs in future suits.
The Court's findings alone will not serve as Res-Judicata. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India In Ganga
Bai v. Vijay Kumar & Ors[5],
held that an appeal in the High Court can only
be filed against a lower court's
decree and decision,
but not against the lower court's findings.
Also, in Smt. Daropati
Devi v. Sohan Lal & Ors[6], it was stated
that Respondents must plead that the litigation is prohibited by
Res-Judicata in their written statements. If Respondents do not make a plea in Written Statement, the
Doctrine of Res-Judicata cannot be applied. In the lank mark case of P.C. Ray and Company Private Limited v.
Union of India[7],
it was decided that a party to a
proceeding might waive the res judicata defence. The defence of res judicata will be waived if the defendant does not
raise it. The res judicata principle is part of the procedure, and either party might waive the res judicata
plea. Because the issue of res judicata
has not been mentioned
in the proceedings, the court can dismiss it.
Res Judicata and Rule of Law: In the Landmark case of Daryao
v. State of Uttar Pradesh[8], it clearly embarks that the principle of
Res Judicata has a much larger and universal
application than Rule of law. The petitioners filed a writ case under Article-226
at the Allahabad High Court, but it was dismissed. Subsequently, a writ
was filed and the court upheld the Principle.
Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice-:
A case that
is pending trial is referred to as Res Sub Judice, whereas a matter that has been
adjudicated or arbitrated is referred to as Res Judicata.
The trial
of a suit that is pending
conclusion in a previous suit is prohibited by Res Sub Judice, but the trial
of a suit that has been concluded in a previous
suit is prohibited by Res Judicata.
Section
11 of the Civil Procedure Code contains a Rule of Constructive Res Judicata, which
is an artificial type of res judicata.
It states that if
a party enters a plea
in a
proceeding between him and
the defendant, he will not be allowed to enter a plea against the same party in
a subsequent proceeding involving the same
topic.
Explanation III & IV of Sec 11. –Example:
The Plaintiff
asserted certain facts, the defendant contest the fact and denies the validity
of the contract. The Court gives its finding that Special Performance contract is
void. The plaintiff now filed a 2nd suit claiming compensation of 50,000
Rupees. The decision of the 1st Suit will apply as Res Judicata on the 2nd
Suit. Though Remedies are different in both the suits, the matter has been constructively
decided and 2nd suit cannot be instituted.
If any
issue has been decided in previously instituted suit i.e former suit. The court
comments or gives his findings which
are necessary to determine the fact in issue in a subsequent suit. The 2nd Suit is barred by
constructive Res judicata. The court has given its decisions not expressly, its findings are an issue in
the 2nd suit than it said that the 2nd suit is barred by Constructive Res Judicata.
The principle of constructive Res Judicata is
further cleared in the landmark case of State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain[9]
where it was held that the plaintiff had knowledge of the findings
and doctrine of Res Judicata is applicable.
Explanation V of sec 11: Any relief
claimed in plaint, which is
not expressly granted by the decree shall for the
purpose of this section,
deemed to have been refused.
CRITICAL
ANALYSIS OF THE EXCEPTIONS AND APPLICABILITY TO THE DOCTRINE
OF RES JUDICATA:
The section
has no bearing on the Court's jurisdiction, but it does serve as a guideline
for the trial of the complaint or problem. According to the theory of Res
Judicata, the party bears the burden of proof. Section 11 of the C.P.C. is not
an index, but rather a requirement.
The Supreme
Court laid down three exceptions to the doctrine
of Res Judicata:
i.
Lack of Jurisdiction:
ii.
When the case is purely a legal issue.
iii.
When a decision is obtained via deception i.e. fraud of
the Court.
Criminal Proceedings: The Supreme Court of India declared in Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan[10], that once a person is acquitted or convicted by a competent criminal court of law, he
cannot be tried for the same crime twice since the doctrine of Res-Judicata
prevents it. The Supreme Court of
India over ruled this decision in Fatima Bibi Ahmed Patel v. the State of Gujarat[11] held that the Res Judicata principle does not apply to criminal matters.
Based on merit: In the case of Devi
Lal v Sales Tax Officer[12]
B questioned the legality of an assessment
order issued under Article 226. The petition was dismissed on the grounds that
it lacked merit. On the merits, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against
the order. B filed a new writ petition in the same High Court, this time challenging the same
assessment judgment. The petition was
dismissed by the High Court this time. The Supreme Court ruled that the petition
was precluded by the res judicata principle.
The notion of res judicata does not apply if
the question has not been decided on the merits previously.[13]
Unadulterated legal Issue: In the case of Mathura Prasad
v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy[14], it was
decided that res judicata exists between the parties to the prior case and that
they cannot proceed in a subsequent
case. In general, even on a question of law, a ruling by a competent court acts as res judicata. However, res judicata will not apply to a legal matter that is unrelated to the facts that give rise to the right.
The decision has previously been revised
by an authority where the cause of action is different or the legislation is different. The ruling will be declared
valid, and the doctrine of res judicata will not apply in later proceedings.
Jurisdiction:
Explanation VIII
of sec11: If in a former suit the court gives any decision and this
decision given by the court is
final and the court has jurisdiction than this will operate ad Res Judicata to the subsequent suit which is instituted
before a court of limited jurisdiction i.e whether the court has jurisdiction it does not matter. So the subsequent suit filed before court has jurisdiction
does not matter what matters is whether the decision of former suit will
operate and is binding as Res Judicata.
In the case of P.V.N. Devoki Amma v. P.V.N.
Kunhi Raman Nair[15],
Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that court of limited
jurisdiction is broad enough to include a court with a pecuniary limit on its jurisdiction.
The
theory does not apply if the decision
is issued by a court with no inherent jurisdiction or if the judgement is silent, i.e. when a
matter is summarily dismissed or a judgement is issued without a discussion of the facts, reasons, or explicit findings.[16]
The courts with exclusive
jurisdiction i.e administrative courts, land acquisition courts etc any subsequent plea in such courts
adhere to the doctrine of Res Judicata.
In the case of Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh[17],
a particular situation arose. A filed a civil suit, and B asserted a claim challenging the Court's arbitration. The plaintiff's objection was upheld, and the plaint was returned to the
plaintiff for presentation. When A contacted the Revenue Court, he was told that he didn't have any jurisdiction, so he
returned the petition. A filed a lawsuit
in the Civil Court once more. The law of res judicata, as contented by B barred the suit.
The
decisions rendered by Courts with concurrent jurisdiction will also fall under the ambit of Doctrine
of Res judicata.
Fraud: In Beliram and Brothers v. Chaudari Mohammed
Afzal[18],
it was held that where a minors suit
was brought in collusion with the defendants and the suit was a fictitious
suit, the decree obtained
therein is one obtained by fraud and collusion within
the meaning of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, s. 44, and does not operate
under the doctrine of Res Judicata.
A complaint was brought in the Court in
the case of Jallur Venkata
Seshayya v. Thadviconda Koteswara Rao[19] to
designate some temples public temples and to set aside the manager's alienation of the endowed property. A
similar complaint had been dismissed by the Court two years earlier, and the plaintiffs argued that the plaintiffs
(in the previous suit) had committed gross negligence, and thus the theory of Res
Judicata need not be applied.
Writs: Res-Judicata does not applied in writ
petitions but there is no right ground to prevent the decisions in the matters in writ proceedings under
Article-32 or Article-226 of Indian Constitution from operating as Res-Judicata in the
subsequent proceedings.
The
Supreme Court held in the case of Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra v.
State of Uttar Pradesh[20] that
the writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court are not inter-party disputes, but rather public interest litigation, the doctrine of Res Judicata
does not apply.
For the first time, the Supreme Court of
India declared in MSM Sharma v.
Dr Shree Krishna,[21]
that section-11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will be applicable to writ petitions
as well. The Hon'ble
Bench decided that if a petition filed under Article
32 or Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is dismissed, Res-Judicata bars subsequent petitions. Unless the ruling is reversed on appeal, the
parties are obligated to submit additional petitions in a court of law.
In public interest cases, the standard of Res Judicata isn't as important. Where the
public interest initially aligns with illegal
mining, subsequent public interest litigation to protect the environment is not prohibited.
The
Supreme Court was specifically asked to decide the issue in Forward Construction Co. Prabhat Mandal[22]. The Supreme Court ruled
that the principle applied to public
interest litigation as long as it was a genuine
case.
Explanation VII of sec 11:The Principle of Res Judicata
also applies to Execution Proceedings.
Whenever a suit is filed it cannot be automatically enforced. For its
enforcement a separate proceeding of
Execution Proceeding needs to be instituted. Once the Court gives its decision than filing of execution proceeding is
commenced to enforce the decision. When Execution proceeding gets dismissed, subsequently based on the same
decision one cannot file the same execution proceeding[23].
CONCLUSION
Although the doctrine
has a fair share of criticism such as Res judicata can also
be applied to a decision that
is not in accordance with the law. It includes not only issues related to bar,
but also those that are to be litigated. For example, if a matter is
dismissed by a court of law or equity on a specific issue, it is not
considered a final ruling and legally res judicata applies,
but it is not justifiable. The scope of Res Judicata
is extremely broad,
and it covers a wide range of topics,
including Public Interest Litigations. This theory applies even when the Code
of Civil Procedure is not in effect,
and it encompasses a wide range of areas related to society and individuals. With the passage of time, the
degree and degree have become larger, and the
Supreme Court
has expanded the areas with its judgements. The Doctrine of Res judicata
is the backbone of civil courts as it is imminent in dismissing
frivolous cases and given the backlog of
cases in our judiciary is an extremely important doctrine in literal and
administrative point of view. The
doctrine is fairly simple and can be easily summarised. The conditions that are Public Policy, a matter which was directly or substantially is issue should have been heard in a previously instituted suit, the matter
which is heard by competent court raised in subsequent suit, between two suits having
the same parties
litigating under same title for the same suit, the subsequent
suit to be instituted in a competent court. If these five conditions are
satisfied it is justifiable to say
that the suit is barred by Res Judicata. The paper has tried to summarise the doctrine and its principle in a brief
format and has also expanded the elaboration od Sec 11 of Civil
Code of Procedure.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
i.
Code of Civil procedure,1908.
ii.
Mulla: Code of Civil Procedure 18th Ed. 2011.
iii.
Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal 1986 AIR 391,
1985 SCR Supl. (3) 766
iv.
MSM Sharma v. Dr Shree Krishna, AIR 1960 SC 1186
v.
Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra v. State of
Uttar Pradesh 1985 AIR 652,
vi.
Jallur Venkata Seshayya v. Thadviconda Koteswara Rao (1937)
39 BOMLR 317
vii.
Beliram and Brothers v. Chaudari Mohammed Afzal (1948)
50 BOMLR 674
viii.
Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh 1979 AIR 1911, 1980 SCR (1)
122
ix.
Union of India v. Pramod Gupta by L.Rs. & Ors., (2005)
12 SCC 1).
x.
P.V.N. Devoki Amma v. P.V.N. Kunhi Raman Nair 1980 AIR
(Kerala) 230
xi.
Mathura Prasad v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy,1971 AIR 2355,
1970 SCR (3) 830
xii.
Devi Lal v Sales Tax Officer 1965 AIR 1150, 1965
xiii.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Jagdish Sharan Agrawal
& Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 689
xiv.
Fatima Bibi Ahmed Patel v. the State of Gujarat (2008)
6 SCC 789
xv.
Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1972 SC 1502
xvi.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain 1977 AIR 1680 SCR
(3) 428
xvii.
Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457
xviii.
P.C. Ray and Company Private Limited v. Union of India
AIR 1971 Cal 512
xix.
Smt. Daropati Devi v. Sohan Lal & Ors 1984 (1) RLR
414,
xx.
Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar & Ors 1974 AIR (SC) 1126
xxi.
Iftikar Ahmed and Syed Meharban Ali 1974) 2 SCC 151
xxii.
Ahmad Adam Sait v. M.E. Makhri AIR 1964 SC 107
xxiii.
Ajay Mohan v H.N. Rai AIR 2008 SC 804
xxiv.
Gulam Abbas &Ors vs State of U.P. 1981 AIR 2198 SCR(1)
1077
[1] 1981 AIR 2198 SCR(1)
1077
[2] AIR 2008 SC 804
[3] AIR 1964 SC 107
[4] 1974) 2 SCC 151
[5] 1974 AIR (SC) 1126
[6] 1984 (1) RLR 414,
[7] AIR 1971 Cal 512
[8] AIR 1961 SC 1457
[9] 1977 AIR 1680 SCR (3) 428
[10] AIR 1972 SC 1502
[11] (2008) 6 SCC 789
[12] 1965 AIR 1150, 1965
SCR (1) 686
[13] State of Uttar Pradesh
& Anr. v. Jagdish Sharan
Agrawal & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 689.
[14] 1971 AIR 2355, 1970 SCR
(3) 830
[15] 1980 AIR (Kerala) 230
[16] (Vide Union of India v. Pramod
Gupta (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (2005) 12
SCC 1).
[17] 1979 AIR 1911, 1980
SCR (1) 122
[18] (1948) 50 BOMLR 674
[19] (1937) 39 BOMLR 317
[20] 1985 AIR 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169
[21] AIR 1960
SC 1186
[22] 1986 AIR 391, 1985 SCR
Supl. (3) 766
[23] Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code 1908
Article Information
RES JUDICATA: THE BACKBONE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE BY: MS. MAARIA LAKDAWALA
Authors: MS. MAARIA LAKDAWALA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/10/26
- 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.