"Res Judicata: Where the echoes of justice sculpt the pillars of legal
certainty and forge the legacy of precedent."...... Vishal Banga
Introduction to Res- Judicata:
In Civil Procedural Code ,1908 , res- judicata is a bar against the parties to
file a suit , which already have been decided , Mainly the main object of put
this section of Res- Judicata in Civil Procedure Code , To end the ligation
process and avoid the parties to go to the court again and again for same
If we talk about this Term ,Res Judicata is a phrase which has been evolved from
a Latin maxim, which stand for 'the thing has been judge It plays a very
important role for the parties to the suits meaning there by that the issue
before the court has already been decided by another court, between the same
parties. Therefore, the court will dismiss the case before it as being useless.
Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi:
This case clearly tells about the
Applicability of Res- Judicata When a matter, whether on a question of fact or
law, has been decided between two parties in one suit and the decision is final,
either because no appeal was taken to the higher court, or no appeal lies in
such case, neither party will be allowed in the future suit between the same
parties to decide the matter again.
In this case it's clear that Res-Judicata
prevents party to go to the court for taking remedy for the
that particular suit which already has been decided, but in some special cases
like PIL, Writ Petitions etc. Re- Judicial doesn't apply.
For making Res Judicata binding, several factors must be met up with:
- Identity in
the thing at suit; identity of the cause at suit;
- Identity of the parties to the action;
- Identity in the designation of the parties involved; whether the judgment was
- Whether the parties were given full and fair opportunity to be heard on the
We can challenge the applicability of Res- Judicata in subsequent suit if there
was not a proper just and fair trial of the suit or simply, we can say if there
was any default for making justice tothe parties or many other factors. can also
Applicability Of Res-Judicata In Writ Petitions:
If we talk about the Applicability of Res- judicata term in the Writ- Petitions
and it was decided so time long that though Section 11 of the Code does not, in
terms, apply to writ petitions, And There is no good ground to preclude
decisions in matters in controversy in writ proceedings under Article 32 or
Article 226 of the Constitution from operating as Res Judicata in subsequent
petitions or regular suits on the same matters in controversy between the same
parties and thus to give limited effect to the principle of finality of decision
after full contest.
In Sharma v. Krishna Sinha:
When we talk about this particular case law the
supreme court of India first time in the history the Supreme Court held that the
general principle of Res Judicata applies even to writ petitions filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India. So, it becomes very important to note
about the Applicability of Res-Judicata on the basis ofgiven Judgement of this
Introduction To The Case:
Daryo & Ors. v State of Uttar Pradesh:
- Thus, if once the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is dismissed by the Court, subsequent petition is barred.
- Similarly, if a writ petition filed by a party under Article 226 is considered on merits as a contested matter and is dismissed, the decision thus pronounced would continue to bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed in appeal or in other appropriate proceedings.
- Now, this is the last point, which is important, says that It would not be open to a party to ignore the said judgment and again move the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs.
This case was one of the most important
case on the applicability of Principle of Res-Judicata's see brief introduction
of the case Firstly:
The present case, Daryo & Ors. v State of Uttar Pradesh
Concluded that when
would the dismissal of writ petition by the High Court be a bar to the Res
judicata on petition in high court,The relevant laws which were used are as
follows -Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India.
sections of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 related to Res Judicata which are
Section 11 and Order XLVII, Rule -1. The two main cases which were also referred
to in this case were M.S.M. Sharma v. Shree Krishna Sinha
Raj Lakshmi Dasi v.
, This point discusses about the section 11 of the code explaining the
principle of Res Judicata does not, apply to writ petitions, and also says that
there are no good grounds to preclude decisions in matters in controversy.
Secondly not good ground upon writ proceedings under article 32 or article 226
of the constitution from operating as Res Judicata in subsequent petitions or
regular suits on the same matters in controversy. Thus, this assignment deals
with different cases in which the doctrine of Res Judicata has been applied by
the Courts of Justice and their implications on the process of justice.
Facts Of Case:
Let's see upon the facts of the case to understand the case study in a proper manner, so the facts were as following:
Legal Issues Raised & Decided:
The legal issue arisen in the case were as following:
- The petitioners and their ancestors had been the tenants of the land and respondents were the proprietors of the land for the past fifty years.
- Due to communal disturbance in UP, they left their village in 1947, after returning they found unlawful possession of respondents on their land.
- The Petitioner filed a case in trial court under UP tenancy Act,1939 and succeeded. After that respondent's appeal was also in favor of petitioner, as a result petitioner obtained possession.
- Respondents filed second appeal in board of revenue, and dismissed petition, Court said that as per UP Zamindari abolition & land reforms (Amendment) Act 1950 Respondents were entitled for it.
- Petitioner moved to the High court under Article 32 by writ of certiorari, HC already interpreted the Act, so it was against the petitioner contentions, as a result the petition was dismissed.
- Petitioner Now lastly moved to the Supreme Court, Court said that the limitation period has expired for appeal under Article 136, before the Allahabad High court. Now Supreme Court Concluded that grounds of attack against board decision are same as raised before High Court, so it was urged by respondents the Petition is barred by Res- Judicata.
- petitioners moved to the Supreme Court even after judgment passed by the
Allahabad High Court claiming that under 32(1) it was a Fundamental right
and thus the issue of Res Judicata will not be considered in the case.
- It was held that there was no substance in the plea that the judgment of
the High Court could not be treated as Res Judicata because under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Relevancy Of Res Judicata In The Case:
Res judicata mainly depends upon two concepts, First is Claim Preclusion &
Second is Issue Preclusion14 Let's Discuss firstly, claim preclusion focuses on
barring a suit from being brought again on a legal cause of action that has
already been finally decided between the parties. Issuepreclusion bars the
re-litigation of factual issues that have already been necessarily determined by
a judge or jury as part of an earlier claim.
Now let's see Appeal relevance in Suit - In this case Respondents Filed appeal
in Board as per their right given to them in Constitution of India. If one party
is not satisfied then can also go for second appeal. Appeals are considered the
appropriate manner by which to challenge a judgment rather than trying to start
a new trial, and once the appeals process is exhausted or waived, res judicata
will apply even to a judgment that is contrary to law. There were alternations
before some years ago in Res- judicata in CPC.
Or in other words, this doctrine is based on the following three maxims,
- Nemo debet lis vaxari pro una eteadem which means none should be vexed twice
for the same cause
- Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that it is the interest
of the state that there should be an end to litigation.
- Res Judicata pro verita occipitur which means that a judicial decision must
be accepted as correct,
The first ground is based on private interest whereas the other two take care of
public policy and larger interest of the society.
Decision Of The Case:
After Examining the contentions and facts of the case the supreme court gave its
Judgement and said that:
The Court is satisfied that a change in the form of attack against the impugned
statute would make no difference to the true legal position that the writ
petition in the High Court and the present writ petition are directed against
the same statute and the grounds raised by the petitioner in that behalf are
substantially the same.
Therefore, the decision of the High Court pronounced by it on the merits of the
petitioner's writ petition under Art. 226 is a bar to the making of the present
petition under Art. 32. In the result this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
There would be no order as to costs. And at last the Petition Dismissed by
Principles Laid Down In This Case: - By Supreme Court
After Judgment Supreme court gave many important guidelines with regards to the
Applicability of Res-judicata on writ petitions and exhaustively dealt with
question of applicability of the principle of Res Judicata in writ proceedings
and laid down certain principles which may be summarized in following points.
- Let's discuss these particular points of guidelines by Court- which is necessary
to understand Supreme Court said that, if a petition under Article 226 is
considered on merits as a contested matter and is dismissed, the decision would
continue to bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed in
appeal or other appropriate proceedings permissible under the Constitution.
- Secondly, the supreme court said that It would not be open to a
party to ignore the said judgment and move the Supreme Court under
Article 32 by an original petition made on the same facts and for
obtaining the same or similar orders or writs.
- Thirdly, if a petition under Article 226 in a High Court is
dismissed not on merits and it is held that the party had an alternative
remedy available to it, the dismissal of the writ petition would not
constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32.
- Fourthly, A dismissal may, constitute a bar to a subsequent
application under Article 32 where and if the facts thus found by the
High Court by themselves relevant even under Article 32.
- Fifthly, if a writ petition is dismissed in limine and an order is pronounced
in that behalf, whether or not the dismissal would constitute a bar would depend
on the nature of the order. If the order is on merits, it would be a bar.
- Sixthly, if a petition is dismissed in limine without a speaking order, such
dismissal cannot be treated as creating a bar of Res Judicata.
- Seventhly, if a petition is dismissed as withdrawn, it cannot be a
bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32 because in such a case,
there had been no decision on merits by the court.
So, these were the guidelines came out from the case, which I have discussed
with you inthe assignment. So now let me give a brief Analysis of my full topic
of Res judicata with case law
So, if we talk about Daryao case, the Supreme Court has placed the doctrine of
Res Judicata on a higher footing, considering and treating the binding character
of judgments pronounced by competent courts as an essential part of the rule of
It is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should attach to
the binding decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction, and it is
also in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over with
the same kind of litigation.
If these two principles form the foundation of the general rule of Res Judicata
they cannot be treated as irrelevant or inadmissible even in dealing with
Fundamental Rights in petition filed under Article 3220.
Thus in this case it was rightly decided by the Supreme Court, in favour of the
respondents that Res Judicata does apply even when it comes to matters of writ
petitions when the subject matter that is being dealt with remains the same and
therefore the decision of the Allahabad High Court was held valid and rightly
The general principles laid down by the Supreme Court in this case has been
taken as a benchmark for deciding application of Res Judicata in subsequent
cases and Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh
has been termed a landmark
judgment in the purview of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in
relation to writ petitions under section 32 and 22621 of the Constitution of
Conclusion & Suggestions:
So above Discussion may be concluded by the following submissions are
- A decision under article 32 should be held as res judicata if a fresh writ petition is filed in respect of the same cause or matter which has already been judicial zed on merits in previous writ petition between the same parties under the same article.
- A decision on merits under article 226 should be held as res judicata if subsequently the same matter or cause is raised in a subsequent writ petition under article 226 or an article of similar amplitude between the same parties.
- The principle of constructive res judicata should be avoided as far as possible (particularly where questions of constitutional significance arise) in the above cases.
- The concept of "merits" as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Daryao's case is satisfactory. However, the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Metal Corporation's case should not be followed.
- A writ decision should not be held to bar a subsequent regular suit. The principle of constructive res judicata as against the regular suit has to be totally avoided.
- Civil Procedure C.K. Takwani, Eastern Book Company, New Delhi, Eighth Edition, 2009.
- Code of Civil Procedure C.K. Thakker, Eastern Book Company, New Delhi, volume I, 2002.
- MJ's code of Civil Procedure, Justice T.S. Doabia, 908, LexisNexis Buttersworth Wadhwa, Nagpur, volume I, 13th edition, 2008.
- Mulla Code of Civil Procedure, Vinay Kumar Gupta, 14th Edition, LexisNexis Butterworts,