UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES

SCHOOL OF LAW

B.A L.L.B (Hons.) Criminal Law / Labor Law

SEMESTER V

ACADEMIC YEAR - 2017-2022

Project for: Code of Civil Procedure I

Under The Supervision of: Ms. Latika Choudhary

Topic: Res Judicata

Name: Malika Lalit, SAP ID: 500061265, 50

Mansi Rana, SAP ID: 500060422, 52

Meenakshi Sharma, SAP ID: 500060524, 53

 Res Judicata

Abstract

Laws of every land are based on principles. These principles govern the entire field
of law in a country. These principles guide legislation, give legitimacy to judicial
decisions and protect the nationals. The judiciary incorporates these principles for
deciding cases and ensures that the legislature and the executive branch comply
with these principles.
Res judicata is such a principle, that its origin cannot be fully traced. It is a
ubiquitous concept in all jurisdictions of the world. Res judicata is universally
applicable based on public policy. India, adopted the principle of res judicata in
Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Res Judicata is a phrase that evolved from the Latin maxim and represents “the
things judged”, meaning that the issue or question of law before the court has
already been decided by another court, between the same parties. Therefore, the
court will reject the case on this ground that it’s already been decided. Res Judicata
as a concept applies to both Civil as well as Criminal legal system.
This article or paper focuses on Section 11 of the C.P.C. The scope of the project
covers an overview of the theory of res judicata in general and provides
background information for this paper. This paper attempts to analyze the theory of
the doctrine and its application in the form of case laws. The first chapter deals
with doctrine in general and aims to provide readers with a background of the
doctrine. The second chapter discusses the essentials for application of res judicata,
later it throw light on difference between Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice.
1. What is Res Judicata?
The thought of Res Judicata evolved from the English common law system, that
originated from the first and primary ideas of the judicial economy, unity or consistency
and conclusiveness. From the common law, it had been incorporated into the Civil
Procedure Law of 1908 and was later adopted by the Indian law system as a full.

“The principle of res judicata whereas based on ancient precedent, is set by a knowledge
that is for all time” - Sir Lawrence Jenkins

Res judicata could be a judicial creation rooted within the Latin ``Res judicata pro
veritate accipitur'', that is, ``the ruling is for the truth’' within the civil law and customary
law systems, the case could be a case with a final judgment and not appealable. The term
is also used to refer to the doctrine aimed at prohibiting or baring the reintroduction or re
filing or re litigation of such cases between the same parties, which is different between
the two legal systems. Once the final judgment is made in the lawsuit, the subsequent
judge who faces the same or substantially the same litigation as the previous one will
adopt the principle of res judicata to retain the validity of the first judgment. The
principle of res judicata is not a product of any enactment or any law or regulation. This
is a gift from public policy.

The principle is based on justice, equity or fairness and good conscience.

Therefore, the same case cannot be accepted again in the same or in numerous different
Court of India. This is solely to prevent them from increasing the judgments, Thus the
plaintiff or litigator might not recover damages from the defendant twice for the same
injury.

In order for Res Judicata to be binding, many factors should be met:

1. identity within the issue at suit;

2. identity of the cause of lawsuit;
3. identity of the parties to the proceedings;
4. Designate identity of the parties involved;
5. whether the judgment is final;
6. whether the each parties were given full and fair opportunity to be heard or express
their views on the issue or problem.
With relevancy a designated party, a person could participate in a very proceedings
whereas filling a given position, and will later initiate constant proceedings in a very
completely different capability. In that case, Res Judicata can’t be used as a defense
unless the defendant will prove that the various titles are illegal, prohibited and sufficient.

Therefore, in short, Res Judicata could be a judicial concept during which the court
doesn’t enable petitions to be filed within the same court or in another court, because the
doctrine of Res Judicata can apply and thus the party won't be allowed to submit petitions
or continue Petition (depending on the situation).

2. History of the Doctrine:

“Res judicata pro veritateoccipitur” is the complete maxim of Latin, which has been
reduced to only “Res Judicata” for many years. The concept of Res Judicata evolved
from the English common law system, which stems from the overwhelming concept of
the judicial economy, consistency and ultimately.
In Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi 1, it was held that the principle of res judicata is
based on the need of giving finality to judicial decision. Further, in the absence of such a
rule, there will be no end to litigation and the parties would be put in constant trouble,
harassment, and expenses.

From the common law, it was incorporated into the Civil Procedure Law of 1908 and was
later adopted by the Indian legal system as a whole. From the Civil Procedure Law, the
Administrative Law witnessed its applicability. Then, other behaviours and regulations
gradually and steadily began to accept the concept of Res Judicata within its scope.
According to Roman law, the defendant can successfully challenge the lawsuit filed by
the plaintiff on the grounds of “original sin review”, which means “one lawsuit and one
decision is sufficient to resolve any dispute”.
It essentially means:
1. Once the matter is finally decided by the competent court, neither party may file a
lawsuit in subsequent proceedings.
1A.I.R. 1960 SC 941
2. A final judicial decision issued by a judicial court that has jurisdiction over the cause
or matter in the proceedings and its parties.
As Das Gupta J. explained: “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 canvass the matter again.”

The doctrine of res judicata is based on three maxims:

a) Nemodebetbisvexari pro una et eademcausa : no man should be punished twice for

the same cause

b) Interest reipublicaeut sit finis litium : it is in the interest of the state that there should
be an end to a litigation

c) Res judicata pro veritateoccipitur : a judicial decision must be accepted as correct.

Therefore, the doctrine of Res Judicata is the combined result of public policies reflected
in the three norms, which apply to all civil or criminal justice processes. The Supreme
Court explained the principle of jurisprudence in the case of Lal Chand v. Radha Krishan2,
stating that the principle is based on justice, fairness and conscience. After the final
judgment is announced in the lawsuit, the subsequent judges face the same or
substantially the same litigation as the earlier case, and they will adopt the Res Judicata
principle “to retain the validity of the first judgment”. Therefore, the same case cannot
be accepted again in the same court or in different courts in India. This is just to prevent
them from making more judgments. Therefore, the plaintiff may not be able to recover
damages from the defendant twice for the same injury.

2 (1977) 2 SCC 88.

Therefore, in short, Res Judicata is a judicial concept in which the court does not allow
petitions to be filed in the same court or in another court, as the doctrine of Res
Judicata will apply and the parties may not submit the petition or continue to petition.
(subject to availability).

Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna 3 pointed out: "If the court is satisfied that the
subsequent lawsuit can be determined from a legal point of view, the court may decide
at its own discretion.

If the problem in the lawsuit is directly and substantively (and ultimately decided)
between the previous proceedings, then the “does not affect the jurisdiction of the
court” part is “as part of the trial of the litigation”. If the same party litigated in the
same title in the court, they would not be able to do so, that is, they would be barred
from trials and subsequent litigation.

Therefore, this jurisprudence theory is based on the basic concepts of public policy and
private interests. This was conceived for greater public interest, which requires all
litigation to end. Therefore, it applies to civil litigation, enforcement procedures, arbitral
proceedings, tax matters, written petitions, administrative orders, interim orders,
criminal proceedings, etc. Section 11 of the CPC is mandatory unless it is based on fraud
or collusion. The burden of proof lies with the party that relies on the theory of Res
Judicata. The provisions of Section 11 of CPC are “not a catalog but are required”. The
previous judgment can only be avoided if it is resorted to Section 44 of the Indian
Evidence Act on the grounds of fraud or collusion

3. Rationale Behind The Doctrine

The essence of the principle of res judicata is the judicial claim that the matter already
determined in a very previous action can’t be re litigated. The policies of doctrine aimed

3AIR (2004) 7 SCC 251.

toward serving which incorporates reducing the general public interest of the legal
proceedings , protecting the individual from having to sue for the constant legal
proceedings, issue or problem multiple times against the same person or his privy , and
promotion of reliance on judgments.

The doctrine of res judicata is relies on the three following maxims or principles:

- nemo debet lis vexari pro una et eadem casua, means that no man can be bothered twice
for the same cause or reason,

- interest republicae ut sit finis litium or that it is in the interest of the State that there
should be an end to litigation, and

- res judicata pro veritate occipitur which means that the judicial decision must be
accepted as correct judgement.

The principle itself relies upon the principles of fairness or justice equity and good
conscience, and applies to various civil litigations, criminal proceedings, writs, and
enforcement of litigation etc. The basic purpose of this principle of judicial creation is to
instill in Legal proceedings and provide a affordable basis , for sound economic use of
judicial resources. 

4. Explanation and applicability of res judicata

Res Judicata is a phrase which has been evolved from a Latin maxim, which stand for
‘the thing has been judged', 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. Res Judicata as a concept is applicable both in
case of Civil as well as Criminal legal system.

Section 11 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908, embodies the rule of res judicata or the
rule of conclusiveness of the judgment, as to the points decided either of facts, or of law,
or of facts and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties. It enacts that once
a matter is finally decided by a competent Court, no party can be permitted to reopen it in
a subsequent litigation. The doctrine of res judicata has been explained by Das Gupta J.
in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi 4 as : “The principle of res judicata is
based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that once a res

4 AIR 1960 SC 941

is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies as between past litigation
and future litigation. When a matter, whether on a question of fact or a question of 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 the same parties to canvass the matter again.”

In Daryao v. State of U.P5, the Court observed that the binding character of judgments
pronounced by Courts of competent jurisdiction is itself an essential part of the rule of
law, and the rule of law obviously is the basis of the administration of justice on which
the Constitution lays so much emphasis. The Court thus held that the rule of res judicata
applies also to a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution and if a petition filed
by a petitioner in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is dismissed on
merits, such decision would operate as res judicata so as to bar a similar petition in the
Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The doctrine of res judicata is a fundamental concept based on public policy and private
interest. It is applicable to civil suits, execution proceedings, arbitration proceedings,
taxation matters, industrial adjudication, writ petitions, administrative orders, interim
orders, criminal proceedings etc.

The question that whether the doctrine of Res Judicata applies to the writ proceedings is
still disputable. If we study the explanations of section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908 we can find that Section 11 is not applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 of
the constitution. But the doctrine or the principle of Res Judicata can be applied to the
writ proceedings when there is no applicability of Section 11 of the code. Once the
question which has been decided by the Writ Petition cannot be reopened by subsequent
appeal. It is settled law that the doctrine of Res Judicata is applied in the Writ
proceedings but there is one exception to this is that plea of Res Judicata should not
violate any fundamental rights of the citizen[8]. The court can apply the principle of Res
Judicata in the writ petition but it is necessary for the court to pass a speaking order. The
court should give proper reasoning while applying the res judicata. For the writ of the
Habeas corpus, the doctrine of constructive Res Judicata would not apply. If the petition
is dismissed as withdrawn it cannot be a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32,
because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the Court.

5 AIR 1961 SC 1457

5. Essential to Res judicata

For the application of this section, the following conditions must be satisfied:

1. There must be two suits, one previously instituted and the other subsequently
instituted.

2. The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be directly in the issue in the previous
suit.

3. Both the suits must be between the same parties or their representatives.

4. The previously instituted suit must be pending in the same court in which subsequent
suit is brought in any other court or in court beyond the limits of India continued by
Central Government or SC.

5. The court in which the previous suit is instituted must have jurisdiction to grant the
relief claimed in the subsequent suit.

6. Such parties must be litigating under the same title in both the suits.

Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal6

Due to the provisions in this section, the court cannot file a lawsuit filed subsequently.
The $10 per click fee is mandatory and the court does not retain any discretion.

Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna7

6AIR (1962) SC 527
7(2004) 7 SCC 251
If the court is satisfied that the subsequent proceedings can be decided solely from a
legal point of view, the court may decide at its own discretion.

In Daryo Singh v. State of U.P.8, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in High Court of
Allahabad under Article 226 and it was dismissed. He further filled writ petition in
Supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution for same relief and same ground. The
Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the contention of High Court. Hence
the principle will also apply to writ petitions.

A party‘ is a person whose name appears on the record at the time of the decision. A
person who applied to be made a party but whose application was refused, is not a
party to the litigation : Kala Chand Banerjee v. Jagannath Marwari9

6. Res judicata versus Res sub judice

In Latin, Res Judicata means a matter that has been judged. When a case has already been
decided and the final judgement been given such that the matter is no longer subject to
appeal, the doctrine of res judicata bars or precludes continued litigation of such matter
between the same parties.

On the other hand, Sub Judice means ‘under judgment’. It implies that a matter is being
considered by court or judge. In a scenario when two or more cases are filed between the
same parties on the same subject matter, the competent court has the power to stay
proceedings. So, the doctrine of Res Sub Judice means stay of suit.

In order to ensure that the courts’ time is effectively used as well as justice for all is
obtained, these doctrines play an important role. They do this by ensuring that a suit ends

8A.I.R. 1961 SC 1459

9AIR 1927 PC 108.
after the judgment is passed and that the same suit on the same subject matter is not filed
multiple times. This ensures smooth functioning of the judiciary.

Following were the differences between these two.

· Res subjudice relates to matter pending judicial enquiry or trial sub judice.
· Res-judicata relates to a matter already adjudicated or matter in which decision is
already there.
· Res subjudice bars to the trial of a suit.
· Res-judicata, bars to file a suit.
· Section 10 deals with res-subjudice
· Section 11 deals with res- judicata.

Res- Subjudice (Section 10) means where the case is pending for hearing, the same
cannot be filed again arising out of same cause of action and between parties bearing the
same title. Whereas, Res- Judicata (Section 11) operates after the case has been finally
heard, and whereby the same parties cannot approach the court for the same cause of
action and relief.

Conclusion
Res Judicata is the concept which is prevalent in all the Jurisdictions of the world. The
doctrine of Res Judicata has become one of an important part of Indian Legal System.
Section 11 of Civil Procedure Court, 1908 states that court can apply Res Judicata when
he thinks that matter is already decided by the former suit. This doctrine is not only
applied to the Civil courts but also to the administrative law and other legislation in India.
The principle of finality on which plea of res judicata lies is the matter of public policy.
The doctrine of Res Judicata is to prevent multiple judgments and protects the rights of
the other party by restricting the plaintiff to recover the damages twice from the
defendant on the same injury.

As a general rule, the principle of res judicata is not applicable to tax related proceedings.
An assessment of particular year is final, complete and binding in relation to the
assessment year in which the decision is given. In income-tax proceedings, though the
principle of res judicata does not apply, rule of consistency which in itself emanates from
the doctrine of res judicata does apply, i.e., if no fresh facts come to light on
investigation, the assessing officer is not entitled to reopen the same question on mere
ground of suspicion or change of opinion. This view of courts is also based on principle
of natural justice. This principle broadly safeguards the interests of the assessees against
arbitrary actions ariarising out of prerogative interpretations and biased actions of the
departmental authorities.

The Doctrine of Res Judicata can be understood as something which restrains the either
party to “move the clock back” during the pendency of the proceedings. The extend of
Res Judicata is very-very wide and it includes a lot of things which even includes Public
Interest Litigations. This doctrine is applicable even outside the Code of Civil Procedure
and covers a lot of areas which are related to the society and people. The scope and the
extend has widened with the passage of time and the Supreme Court has elongated the
areas with its judgments.