You are on page 1of 6

Object 1

Object 2

Le g al Se rv ice Ind ia

Res Judicata
Author: Shashwat Agarwal - Semester V student of Nirma University, Institute of Law

Categor

Search

n
r evolved
r
rfromr a Latin
e maxim, which stand for the thing has been judged, meaning there by that the issue before the
es. Therefore, the court will dismiss the case before it as being useless. Res Judicata as a concept is applicable both in

ar re-litigation of such
S cases between the same parties, which is different between the two legal systems. Once a final
e confronted with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one, they would apply the Res Judica
njustice
o
o toothe oparties
h of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources and t

be
in the same or in the different Court of India. This is just to prevent them from multiplying judg
n taken
n up
n again
n either
a
ant twice for the same injury.

ral factors must be met up with:

ties involved;

nd fair opportunity to be heard on the issue.

nvolved, a person may be involved in an action while filling a given office and may subsequently initiate the same action
ba defense
t
l unless
t the
S defendant could show that the differing designations were not legitimate and sufficient .

e
e
soa judicial
concept wherein
the Courts do not allow a petition to be filed in the same or to the other Court for the doctri
the petition or to continue the petition (as the case may be).
wing.
o
rAlthough the Civil
r Procedure does not apply to the proceedings other than suits. Whereas in Administrative Law, t
ngs.
k

icata
the full latin maximiwhich has, over the years, shrunk to mere "Res Judicata" .
volvement from the English Common Law system, being derived from the overriding concept of judicial economy, consi
de of Civil Procedurec and which was later as a whole was adopted by the Indian legal system.

e
ministrative Law witnesses
its applicability. Then, slowly but steadily the other acts and statutes also started to admit th
s

ivil Procedure Code 1908.


that have a civil law legal system is much narrower in scope than in common law nations . According to the dictionary
ween two or more parties already decided by a court. Thereafter, if either of the parties approaches the same court for t
s judicata' .

deals with this concept. It embodies the doctrine of Res Judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of a judgement, as to the

quent suit between the same parties. It enacts that once a matter is finally decided by a competent court; no party can
of such a rule there will be no end to litigation and the parties would be put to constant trouble, harassment and expens

on three Roman maxims:


ausa which means that no man should be vexed (annoyed) twice for the same cause;
m meaning thereby that it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a litigation; and
hich bears the meaning as a judicial decision must be accepted as correct .

y for Res Judicata are:

s;
first and second suits;
st be the same as those in the first, or have been
ion .
all exhaustive even though it has very wide and enlarged amplitude.

ction of the Court but operates as a par to the trial of the suit or issue, if the matter in the suit was directly and subs
parties litigating under the same title in a Court, then they are not competent i.e. they become barred to try the subse

fundamental concept based on public policy and private interest. It is conceived in the larger public interest, which req
suits, execution proceedings, arbitration proceedings, taxation matters, writ petitions, administrative orders, interim ord

claiming under a party of a former suit cannot avoid the applicability of section 11 of C.P.C. as it is mandatory except on
s on the party relying on the theory of Res Judicata. The provisions of section 11 of C.P.C. are not directory but mandat
e to section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act on the ground of fraud or collusion.

dhan Ghosal v. Deorajan Deb said that the principle of Res Judicata is based on the need of giving finality to the judicia

tive Law.
erstood subject. As the name suggests, Administrative Law deals with the structure, powers and functions of the organs
res followed by them in exercising their powers and functions, the method by which their powers are controlled .

ulatory law, is created and enforced by some type of administrative government body from whom the law derives its po
cutive. It applies to all public officials and public agencies.

may act through rulemaking, adjudication, or by enforcing a specific regulatory agenda. Administrative law is technically
which applies for hearings before quasi-judicial bodies, boards, commissions or administrative tribunals supplement the

udicial authority, administrative authority entails the power to issue rules and regulations based on statutes, grant licen
ate investigations of and provide remedies for complaints or problems, and issue orders directing parties to conform to g

ive law are audi alteram partem (no person shall be condemned, punished or have any property right deprived, unhe
he or she is party or in which he/she has an interest)

of administrative law has been the expansion of the administrative apparatus, functions and powers of the government
nt in the 9th Century. When extensive powers are conferred on the administration, it becomes necessary to evolve a su
n.

owers creates the spectacle of misuse and abuse of power. Therefore, for the regulation and control of the administrativ

tors in dealing with administrative agencies: 1) the rules and regulations are often special for each agency and are not
public must "exhaust his/her administrative remedies" (take every step, including appeals) with the agency and its sys
court.

nment official with quasi-judicial powers, including the authority to conduct hearings, makes findings of fact, and recom

ncept under Administrative Law


is applicable to the Code of Civil Procedure. But, at times, in many other statutes there is a use of the doctrine.
layed by the Administrative Law is that of a watch dog. The Administrative Law sees that there is no use of power whic
there is an improvement in the society without any hurdles and the administration performs its duty in an honest man

doctrine is that, it administers as to how well the Judiciary does its work, how efficiently the Judiciary disposes off the ca
ne petition filed in the same or in the other court of India.

ther court, just to harass and malign the reputation of the opposite party or can do so for receiving compensation twice
tra cases in the courts kitty, Res Judicata holds a big responsibility and importance.

cept in between Administrative Law and the other laws. In Administrative Law, the doctrine works as a working principle
e have discussed above, Section 11 has a big role to be played in the civil courts of India. Even in International Law whi
1) (c) is dedicated towards the doctrine of Res Judicata.

de in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:
general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;
f a general practice accepted as law;
zed by civilized nations;
9, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary mean

ply to the Constitution matters. The rule of Res Judicata is basically a rule of private law but has been transposed into th
ng one proceeding after another and urging new grounds every time, in respect of one and the same ground every time
tition cannot be moved against the judgement of a petition in a particular High Court. The judgement can be of any nat
enged.

ific, Evidence Law also talks about the doctrine of Res Judicata but in the same context as that has been used in C.P.C. T
re some few other laws which talk about the role of Res Judicata in the statute.

strike a balance between the two largely separated poles. One pit assures an efficient judicial system that renders fina
aving to defend the same claim or issue of law repeatedly. On the other hand, it protects the plaintiff's interest in havin
explained the need for this legal precept as follows:
red to the related doctrines of res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). Under Res Judica
m re-litigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. Under collateral estoppel, once a court has dec
clude re-litigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first cause. As this court an
ieve parties of the costs and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and by preventing inconsistent d

of the doctrine of Res Judicata is that the doctrine tries to bring in natural and fair justice to the parties and that too by
ice or for harassing the other party.

epts: claim preclusion, and issue preclusion (also called collateral estoppel), though sometimes Res Judicata is used mo
n barring a suit from being brought again on a legal cause of action that has already been finally decided between the p
ready been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier claim.

if either, of these apply to later lawsuits that are seemingly related, because many causes of action can apply to the sa

f Res Judicata is to enable the Courts deliver the justice and then to dismiss or freeze the other active suits which are o
e Court to dismiss the matter from its jurisdiction and also the jurisdiction of the other Courts which are at the same lev

the appeals process, which is considered a linear extension of the same lawsuit as it travels up (and back down) the ap
which it to challenge a judgment rather than trying to start a new trial, and once the appeals process is exhausted or w

ll been decided in the case of Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P. where the code embodies the rules of conclusiveness as evid
aint in which the matter is directly and substantially an issue becomes final. Section 11 does create any right or interest
e again. The Court is assumed and applied to all the judicial bodies working in India.

obably the most difficult question that judges must resolve in applying res judicata. Sometimes merely part of a subseq
mplaint, or a single factual issue being removed from reconsideration in the new trial. The principle of Res Judicata has b
finality of decision by Courts of law and a decision under Section 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act of 1934 was held
es Judicata has been held to be not exhaustive and even though a matter may not be directly covered by the provisions

ata is not confined to what is contained in Section 11 but is of more general application. Res Judicata could be as much
fferent suits.

mt. Deorajin Debi , where the principle of Res Judicata is invoked in the case of the different stages of proceedings in the
which the adjectival law provides for the decision being reached as well as the specific provision made on matters touc
nciple is held to be applicable. Order IX Rule 7 does not put an- end to the litigation nor does it involve the determinatio
ocutory proceeding of the type provided for by Order IX Rule 7 is not of the kind which can operate as Res Judicata so a

to Res Judicata that allow a party to attack the validity of the original judgment, even outside of appeals. These except
urisdictional issues, based not on the wisdom of the earlier courts decision but its authority or competence to issue it.
ystems with multiple jurisdictions, such as under federal governments, or when a domestic court is asked to enforce or

cess, cases that appear to be Res Judicata may be re-litigated. An instance would be the establishment of a right to cou
) may be allowed to be re-tried with a counselor as a matter of fairness.

n to Res Judicata.
vs. Thadviconda Koteswara Rao , a suit was filed in the Court for the purpose of declaring certain temples public templ
ereof. A similar suit was dismissed by the Court two years ago and the plaintiffs here contended that it was the gross ne
octrine of Res Judicata should not be applied. But, the Privy Council said that finding of a gross negligence by the trial co
nts, which would amount, to want of bona fide or collusion on the part of the plaintiffs in prior suit. There being no evide
art of plaintiffs as res judicata.

. Chaudari Mohammed Afzal it was held that where a minors suit was not brought by the guardian of the minors bona fi
tious suit, a decree obtained therein is one obtained by fraud and collusion within the meaning of the Indian Evidence A
ata in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, s. 11 is modified by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 44 and the principles will not
ciples may not be applied in a way making Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, s. 11 nugatory.

tlement Kendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was held that the writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court are not inter-pa
e controversy before the court is as to whether for social safety and for creating a hazardless environment for the peopl
aid that there was a final order, in a dispute of this type it would be difficult to entertain the plea of Res Judicata. The Co
e would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings and would be against the interests of the society. It is mete and
n into account at this stage. Undoubtedly, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has come into force with effect from
he Central Government to take measures to protect and improve the environment. These writ petitions were filed as ea
The principle of Res Judicata does not apply strictly to public interest litigations. The procedural laws are not fully appli
relates to illegal mining, subsequent public interest litigation to protect environment is not barred.

Mandal , the Supreme Court was directly called upon to decide the question. The apex court held that the principle wo

nion of India, the court observed:


same issue coming up before the courts again and again in the grab of public interest litigation. It is high time to put an
ts judgement either in favour or against the doctrine of Res Judicata

derstood as something which restrains the either party to move the clock back during the pendency of the proceedin
things which even includes Public Interest Litigations. This doctrine is applicable even outside the Code of Civil Procedu
scope and the extend has widened with the passage of time and the Supreme Court has elongated the areas with its ju

als process, which is considered a linear extension of the same lawsuit as the suit travels up (and back down) the appe
which to challenge a judgment rather than trying to start a new trial. Once the appeals process is exhausted or waived

dicata that allow a party to attack the validity of the original judgment, even outside of appeals. These exceptionsusu
ictional issues, based not on the wisdom of the earlier court's decision but its authority or on the competence of the ear
ailable (and to succeed) in judicial systems with multiple jurisdictions, such as under federal governments, or when a d
ourt.

rocess, cases that appear to be Res Judicata may be re-litigated. An example would be the establishment of a right to c
allowed to be re-tried with a counselor as a matter of fairness.

y Res Judicata and renders a contradictory verdict on the same claim or issue, if a third court is faced with the same cas
gment, even though the result came out differently the second time. This situation is not unheard of, as it is typically th
ge's attention, and the judge must decide how broadly to apply it, or whether to recognize it in the first place.

, Edition 5. Reprint 2007, Eastern Book Publication, Lucknow.


ce. Edition 1. Asia law House, Hyderabad.
nistrative Law.
of Civil Procedure

indra-kumar-ors-29694951
ticles/rju.htm
cata
ex.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0#CHAPTER_II
m?abstract_id=1102910#
w.php?asset_file_id=12359
opics/Res_judicata#encyclopedia
s-judicata.htm

utionally Valid

The author can be reached at: shashwat.nirma@legalserviceindia.com

We offer Cop
Right

Ask

ennai - Bangalore - Hyderabad - Allahabad - Pune - Ahmedabad - Nagpur - Cochin - Gurgaon- Jaipur - Ludhiana - Thane - Noi

zerland - Barbados - London - Cameroon - Dubai - Paris - Johannesburg - Sydney -Singapore - Lawyers In America - Lawyers

n
w

Medico Legal
Divorce law
Family law
ur website
Patent Forms
ks
Wills
law ibrary
x
Law Articles
aws
Legal Resources
aws
Cheque bounce laws
t, legal Aid & PIL Law Blog
Court Judgments legal Discussion Forum
Osama Bin Laden
n maxims
Stamp Duty Calculator
ials
Link-Exchange
law Forms
Bare - Acts

Quotes

Constitutional Law
Immigration Law
Company Law
Partnership firms

Woman issues
Consumer laws
Cause Lists
High Courts in India
legal Profession
Law Forum
Web-Search
Blogs
Ad page
Sitemap
RSS Feed

Lawyers in India - Search by City

lawyers in Delhi - New Delhi lawyers in Kolk


lawyers in Chennai
lawyers in Mum
lawyers in Chandigarh
lawyers in Bang
lawyers in Surat
lawyers in Pune
lawyers in Nashik
lawyers in Hyd
lawyers in Janjgir
lawyers in Rajk
lawyers in Indore
lawyers in Nag
lawyers in Allahabad
lawyers in Pond
lawyers in Agra
lawyers in Jaipu
lawyers in Ahmedabad
lawyers in Coch
lawyers in Jodhpur
lawyers in Luck
Lawyers in Noida & Gr Noida International C
Lawyers in New York
Law Colleges
Lawyers India
Law Debates

Home | About Us | Privacy | Terms of use | F A Q | Divorce by mutual consent | Lawyers | Submit
article | Sitemap | Contact Us
legal Service India.com is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt of India)
2000-2013
ISBN No: 978-93-82417-01-9
Object 3