Res Judicata is an expression which has been advanced from a Latin proverb,
which means the thing has been judged
, which means thereby that the issue
before the court has already been chosen by another court, between similar
parties. Therefore, the court will dismiss the case before it as being
pointless. Res Judicata as an idea is applicable both in the case of Civil just
as Criminal legal framework.
The term is additionally used to mean to 'bar re-litigation of such cases
between similar parties, which is different between the two legal frameworks.
When the last judgment has been reported in a lawsuit, the resulting judges who
are gone up against with a suit that is indistinguishable from or generously
equivalent to the previous one would apply the Res Judicata doctrine to
preserve the impact of the primary judgment.
This is to prevent shamefulness to the parties of a case as far as anyone knows
completed, yet maybe for the most part to maintain a strategic distance from
superfluous misuse of resources and season of the Judicial System. Also,
accordingly, a similar case can't be taken up again either in the equivalent or
in the distinctive Court of India. This is simply to keep them from duplicating
decisions, so an overarching plaintiff may not recuperate damages from the
defendant twice for a similar injury.
Res judicata is a plea mentioned under section 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. It is a doctrine applied to offer finality to a list in unique or
appellate proceedings. The doctrine in substance implies that an issue or a
point chose and having accomplished finality, ought not to be permitted to be
re-opened and re-unsettled over once more.
The meaning of res
is everything that may form an object of rights
and includes an object, subject matter or status
and res judicata means a
matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter
settled by judgment
All civilized legal frameworks have acknowledged the doctrine of res judicata. Under
Roman Law, a defendant could successfully contest a suit filed by a plaintiff on
the plea of ex caption res judicata
. It was said, one suit and one
decision are enough for any single dispute
The doctrine of res judicata have their foundations on the accompanying three
- Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa – no man should be vexed
twice for the same cause;
- Interest republican ut sit finis lithium – it is in the interest of the
State that there should be an end to litigation;
- Res judicata pro veritate occipital – a judicial decision must be
accepted as correct.
The doctrine of res judicata is founded on the principles of equity, justice,
and good conscience. The doctrine applies to all civil and criminal proceedings
and equally to all quasi-judicial proceedings before tribunals. Section 11 of
the Code is pertinent to both the parties to a suit and not against the
defendant alone. The principle of res judicata is furtherance against the court
and is a mixed question of the fact and law and has to be specifically pleaded.
The doctrine of Res Judicata in countries that have a common law legal framework
is much smaller in scope than in common law countries. As indicated by the word
reference signifying, 'Res Judicata'
signifies a case or suit including a
specific issue between at least two parties previously chose by a court. From
that point, if both of the parties move toward a similar court for the mediation
of a similar issue, the suit will be struck by the law of res judicator.
Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure manages this idea. It epitomizes the
doctrine of Res Judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of a judgment, regarding
the focuses chose both of fact, or law, or fact and law, in each ensuing suit
between similar parties. It sanctions that once a matter is at last chosen by a
competent court; no gathering can be allowed to reopen it in ensuing litigation.
Without such a rule, there will be no limit to litigation and the parties would
be put to steady difficulty, badgering, and costs.
The pre-imperatives which are fundamental for Res Judicata are:
- There should be the last judgment;
- The judgment should be on the merits;
- The claims should be something similar in the first and second suits;
- The parties in the subsequent action should be equivalent to those in
the first or host been represented by a gathering to the prior action.
The provisions of Section 11 are not in the least comprehensive even though
it has an exceptionally wide and augmented adequacy. The section doesn't
influence the jurisdiction of the Court
however works as a standard to the
of the suit or issue, if the matter in the suit was straightforwardly and
considerably in issue (lastly chose) in the past suit between similar parties
litigating under a similar title in a Court, at that point they are not
competent for example they become banned to attempt the resulting suit in which
such issue has been raised.
Along these lines, this teaching of Res Judicata is a basic idea dependent on
open policy and private interest. It is imagined in the bigger public interest,
which requires that each litigation should conclude. It, along these lines,
applies to civil suits, execution proceedings, arbitration proceedings, taxation
matters, writ petitions, authoritative orders, interim orders, criminal
proceedings, and so on Standard litigation being a party or asserting under a
party of a previous suit can't maintain a strategic distance from the pertinence
of section 11 of C.P.C. as it is required besides on the ground of fraud or plot
all things considered.
The onus of proof lies on the party depending on the
theory of Res Judicata. The provisions of section 11 of C.P.C. are not an index
but rather compulsory
. The judgment in a previous suit can be stayed away from
exclusively by taking recourse to section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act on the
ground of fraud or agreement.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Das Gupta in Satyadhan Ghosal v. Deorajan Deb
that 'the rule of Res Judicata depends on the need of offering irrevocability to
the legal choices'.
Exceptions to the doctrine of Res Judicata.
The Supreme Court has set down 3 exceptions to the rule of Res Judicata.
Fatima Bibi Ahmed Patel v. the State of Gujarat
- When judgment is passed without jurisdiction.
- When the matter includes an unadulterated question of law.
- When the judgment has been gotten by committing fraud on the Court.
(2008) 6 SCC 789 – Res Judicata
principle not applicable to criminal cases.
Decision Without Merit
In-State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Jagdish Sharan Agrawal & Ors.
1 SCC 689, the Apex Court held that where the matter has not been decided on
merit earlier, the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable.
Lack Of Jurisdiction
The doctrine would not apply if the judgment is by a Court lacking
inherent jurisdiction or when the judgment is non-speaking.
The rule of res judicata would not matter if the decree has been gotten by
rehearsing misrepresentation or fraud on the court, or where the procedures had
been taken all together under an extraordinary Statute. All the more in this
way, every finding in the prior judgment would not work as res judicata. Just an
, chose in the prior
suit, would work as res judicata.
Where the decision has not been given on merit, it would not work for the
situation against the judgment and decree of the court underneath the allure is
forthcoming in the re-appraising court, the judgment of the court beneath can't
be held to be conclusive, and the discoveries recorded in that would not work as
In the case of Jallur Venkata Seshayya v. Thadviconda Koteswara Rao
suit was filed in the Court to declare certain temples public temples and for
setting aside alienation of the endowed property by the manager thereof. A
comparable suite was excused by the Court two years prior and the plaintiffs
here fought that it was gross negligence concerning the plaintiffs (of the past
suit) and consequently the doctrine of Res Judicata ought not to be applied.
In any case, the Privy Council said that finding of gross negligence by the
trial court was a long way from a finding of intentional suppression of the
documents, which would sum, to the need of genuine or collusion for the
plaintiffs in the earlier suit. There is no evidence in the suit setting up one
or the other need of true blue of collusion to plaintiffs as res judicata.
In the case of Beliram and Brothers v. Chaudari Mohammed Afzal
, it was
held that where a minors suit was not brought by the guardian of the minors bona
fide but was brought in collusion with the defendants and the suit was a
fictitious suit, a 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 Res Judicata.
The principle of Res Judicata in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, s. 11 is
modified by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 44 and the principles will not
apply if any of the three grounds mentioned in s. 44 exists. General principles
may not be applied in a way making Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, s. 11
In the case of Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar
, 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.
Regardless of whether it is said that there was the last order, in a debate of
this kind it is hard to engage the plea of Res Judicata. The Court was of the
view that leaving the inquiry open for assessment, later on, would prompt a
superfluous assortment of proceedings and would be against the interests of the
general public. It is a lot and legitimate as likewise in the interest of the
gatherings that the whole inquiry is considered at this stage.
Without a doubt, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has come into power with
impact from 19 November 1986. Under this enactment, power got vested in the
Central Government to take measures to secure and improve the environment. These
writ petitions were documented as ahead of schedule as 1983 over three years
before the enactment came into power.
The standard of Res Judicata doesn't matter carefully to public interest
litigations. The procedural laws are not completely pertinent to public interest
litigation cases. Where the earlier public interest identifies with illicit
mining, ensuing public interest litigation to secure the environment isn't
In Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal
, the Supreme Court was
directly called upon to decide the question. The apex court held that the
principle would apply to public interest litigation provided it was a bona fide
Res Judicata doesn't restrict the advances cycle, which is viewed as a direct
expansion of a similar lawsuit as the suit goes up (and back down) the appellate
court stepping stool. Requests are viewed as the suitable way by which to
challenge a judgment instead of attempting to begin another preliminary. When
the offers cycle is depleted or postponed, Res Judicata will apply even to a
judgment that is in opposition to the law.
There are restricted exceptions to Res Judicata that permit involved with
assault the legitimacy of the first judgment, even outside of claims. These
exceptions—as a rule, called guarantee assaults—are regularly founded on
procedural or jurisdictional issues, put together not concerning the shrewdness
of the previous court's choice however its position or on the ability of the
prior court to give that choice. A security assault is bound to be accessible
(and to succeed) in judicial frameworks with different jurisdictions
for example, under federal governments, or when a domestic court is approached
to implement or perceive the judgment of an unfamiliar court. Also, in issues
including fair treatment, cases that give off an impression of being Res
Judicata might be re-contested. A model would be the foundation of an option to
guide. Individuals who have had freedom removed (i.e., detained) might be
permitted to be re-attempted with a guide as an issue of reasonableness.
The Doctrine of Res Judicata can be perceived as something which restrains
either gathering to move the clock back
during the pendency of the
proceedings. The stretch out of Res Judicata is incredibly wide and it
incorporates a ton of things which even incorporates Public Interest
Litigations. This doctrine is material even external to the Code of Civil
Procedure and covers plenty of territories that are identified with society and
individuals. The degree and the degree have enlarged with the progression of
time and the Supreme Court has extended the territories with its decisions.