Introduction to Res Judicata

The term "Res Judicata" originated in English common law and has subsequently been developed and interpreted by several court rulings. As established by Sir William de Grey, C. J. in the 1776 case of the Duchess of Kingston[1] a judgment from a court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly addressing a particular point, serves as both a plea bar and conclusive evidence between the same parties regarding the same matter directly in question in another court.

According to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a court cannot hear a case or matter if it has already been directly and significantly addressed in a previous lawsuit involving the same parties or those claiming through them, under the same legal title, and where the court had the authority to adjudicate on the subsequent matter or the matter where the issue was raised and conclusively settled.[2]

The courts, in citing Section 11 of the CPC, have established the principle that a court cannot entertain a lawsuit or a specific matter if it has already been addressed, either directly or indirectly, in a previous legal proceeding. Hence, to determine the applicability of res judicata, the same matter raised in the current suit must have been adjudicated in the preceding legal action.[3]

In the case of V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava, Justice R C Lahoti, speaking on behalf of a two-judge bench, addressed the concept of res judicata and the evidence needed to substantiate it. The court emphasized the importance of examining the pleadings, issues, and judgment from the previous lawsuit when considering the plea of res judicata.

The court has held that the principle of res judicata doesn't challenge the fundamental jurisdiction of the court hearing the subsequent suit. Rather, it operates as a form of estoppel by judgment, grounded in the public policy of achieving finality in legal disputes and preventing individuals from being subjected to repeated litigation on the same matter. Not only must the plea be raised, but it also needs to be supported by providing copies of the pleadings, issues, and judgment from the previous case. In certain instances, only the judgment from the previous suit may be submitted as evidence of the plea of res judicata, especially if it thoroughly details the pleadings and issues, which can be considered sufficient proof.[4]

However, it was pointed out in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa[5] that the primary approach to resolving the issue of res judicata involves initially assessing the arguments presented by the parties in their respective pleadings from the previous lawsuit. Subsequently, the focus shifts to identifying the specific findings made in the judgment that establish res judicata. Relying solely on a summary of the allegations mentioned in the judgment's recitals to speculate about the content of the pleadings is fraught with risk and is not advisable.

A Constitution Bench in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal[6] has held drawing a parallel between the plea of res judicata and the plea of estoppel as per Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been established that evidence regarding the plaint in the previous suit, which is asserted to create a legal impediment, must be furnished. The plea primarily hinges on identifying the cause of action in both suits, requiring the defence to assert the bar to substantiate the cause of action in the prior suit. Such assertions cannot rely solely on speculation or deducing facts from previous pleadings.

It was pointed out by the Privy Council in Kali Krishna Tagore v. Secy. of State for India in Council[7] that determining the plea of res judicata requires understanding the issues that were contested in the previous suit and what was adjudicated upon. This necessitates examining the pleadings, the raised issues, and the judgment from the prior suit. Without reviewing these documents, it is impossible to ascertain the matters at hand and what was ultimately decided.

Rejection of Plaint

Before a lawsuit proceeds, it is the responsibility of the court to carefully examine the complaint to determine if it should be either returned or dismissed. In making this decision, the court must consider various factors, including those outlined in Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which specifies conditions under which a complaint should be dismissed.[8]

Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC outlines the circumstances, conditions, and reasons for dismissing plaints. It delineates the grounds upon which courts can dismiss plaints, and it is crucial to assess whether the dismissal of the plaint under Order VII is appropriate.[9] The litigant cannot be compelled to provide a written statement or a formal declaration without making a voluntary decision to do so, if such a request exists.[10]Besides, this rule can be applied at any phase of the procedures as in Selina Sheehan vs Hafez Mohammad Fateh Nashib, the plaint was dismissed much after it was given a suit number.[11]

The court needs to thoroughly review the plaintiff's submission and determine whether it should be accepted as is or returned for amendments. However, if the criteria outlined in Order VII Rule 11 are met, the court will inevitably dismiss the plaintiff's submission.[12]

Rejection based on Res Judicata

The Supreme Court, in Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors[13], provided an interpretation of "Res Judicata" in relation to Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ("CPC"). To comprehend the essence of Order VII Rule 11(d), it is crucial to acknowledge that this rule outlines situations where a "plaint" may be rejected. Therefore, these circumstances should be considered at face value when the plaintiff presents the plaint, and no other pleadings should be taken into account.

The court stressed that the contentions presented in the plaint should form the foundation for determining whether the plaint is prohibited by any legal provisions. Additionally, it was noted that recourse to other materials, such as written statements, is not permissible in resolving this matter.[14]

Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure outlines the circumstances under which a plaint may be rejected by the court. These include:

• Lack of disclosure of a cause of action.
• Undervaluation of relief claimed, with failure to correct valuation upon court's request.
• Insufficient stamping of the plaint, with failure to supply required stamp paper upon the court's request.
• Appearance of the suit being barred by any law based on the statement in the plaint.
• Failure to file the plaint in duplicate.
• Non-compliance with provisions of Rule 9.

The court may extend the time for correcting valuation or supplying stamp paper only if exceptional circumstances prevent the plaintiff from doing so within the fixed time, and such refusal to extend time would result in injustice to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court in Srihari Hanumandas Totala analysed Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The court unequivocally stated that in determining a matter related to res judicata, the identical issue raised in the current suit must have been conclusively settled in a previous lawsuit.^[15] A reference was made to the judgment of V. Rajeshwari v. T.C Saravanabava^[16] where it was held that the fundamental approach to resolving the issue of res judicata involves initially understanding the arguments presented by the parties in their respective pleadings from the previous suit. Subsequently, the focus shifts to identifying the specific findings made in the judgment that establish res judicata. It's not enough to simply raise the plea; it must be supported by providing copies of the pleadings, issues, and judgment from the previous case.
The Court referred to the case of Kamala & others v. KT Eshwara and Ors^[17], which specifically addresses the use of res judicata as a basis for rejecting a plaint. Justice S B Sinha scrutinized the extent of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, emphasizing that during this phase; the court should refrain from examining any evidence or resolving contentious matters of fact or law. If it is found that the court's jurisdiction is barred by any legal provision, particularly concerning the subject matter, then the application for rejecting the plaint should be considered.
The Court in Srihari Hanumandas Totala^[18] laid the following guiding principles:

• To reject a plaint based on the assertion that the suit is barred by any law, only the assertions made in the plaint should be consulted, disregarding any defence put forward by the defendant.
• When determining whether a suit is barred by res judicata, several conditions must be met:
  1. The 'previous suit' must have been resolved.
  2. The issues raised in the subsequent suit must have been directly and significantly addressed in the former suit.
  3. The former suit must have involved the same parties or parties claiming through them, under the same legal title.
  4. These issues must have been conclusively decided by a court with the authority to hear the subsequent suit.
  5. As the examination of the plea of res judicata involves a review of the pleadings, issues, and verdict in the 'previous suit', such a plea extends beyond the purview of Order 7 Rule 11(d), which requires only the examination of statements in the plaint.

Conclusion
The contentions presented in the plaint should serve as the primary basis for determining whether the plaint is barred by any legal provisions. It was also noted that recourse to other materials, such as written statements, is not permissible in deciding this matter. If the plaint, upon initial examination, does not reveal any facts leading to the conclusion that it should be rejected on the grounds of res judicata, then it cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d).

End-Notes:

• (1776) 20 Howell's State Trials 355
• Vijay Pal Dalmia and Aditya Dhar, Res Judicata And Concept Of Rejection Of Plaint, Mondaq.com, last visited 20th July 2022
• V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004) 1 SCC 551
• ibid
• (1976) 4 SCC 780
• 1964 SC 1810
• (1887-88) 15 IA 186: ILR 16 Cal 173
• Supra Note 2
• STA Law Firm, Grounds For Rejection Of The Plaint: Civil Procedure Code, Mondaq.com, last visited 20th July 2022
• ibid
• AIR 1932 Cal 685
• ibid
• (2021) 9 SCC 551
• Ibid
• Supra Note 14
• (2004) 1 SCC 551
• (2008) 12 SCC 661
• Supra Note 9