Fr

iendEnLaw

ResJudi
cat
a:

Resj udi
cata(RJ)orresiudicat
a,alsoknownascl ai
m precl
usi
on,i
stheLatintermfor"
amat ter
[al
ready]judged"andreferstoeitheroftwoconcept s:i
nbothciv
ill
awandcommonl awl egal
systems,acasei nwhichtherehasbeenaf inal
judgmentandisnolongersubjectt
oappeal
;and
thelegaldoctri
nemeantt obar(orprecl
ude)rel
it
igat
ionofaclai
m bet
weent hesameparti
es.

I
nt hecaseofr
esjudi
cat
a,thematt
ercannotber
aisedagain,
eit
heri
nthesamecour
tori
na
di
ff
erentcour
t.Acour
twil
luseresj
udi
catatodenyr
econsi
derati
onofamatter
.

Thedoct ri
neofr esj udicat
ai samet hodofpr ev
ent
inginjusticet othepar t
iesofacase
supposedlyf i
nishedbutper hapsal
so ormost lyawayofav oidi
ngunnecessar ywast eof
resourcesi nthecourtsy stem.Resjudi
catadoesnotmer elypr eventfutur
ej udgmentsfrom
contradict
ingearl
ierones,butalsopr
eventsl
it
igant
sfrom mul
tiplyi
ngj udgments,andconfusi
on.

ResJudi
cat
a,UnderSect
ion11ofCPC:

Secti
on11contai
nst heruleofconcl usi
venessofthejudgmentwhichisbasedpar tl
yont he
maxim ofRomanjuri
spr
udence“ i
nterestr
eipubl
icaeutsi
tfi
nisl
i
tium”(i
tconcernstheStat
ethat
ther
ebeanendt olawsuits)andpar t
lyonthemaxi m“nemodebetbisvexariprounaeteadem
causa”(nomanshouldbev exedt
wi ceoverfort
hesamecause).

Thesecti
ondoesnotaf f
ectthejuri
sdi
cti
onofthecour tbutoperat
esasabartothetri
alofthe
sui
torissue,i
fthematt
erinthesuitwasdirect
lyandsubstanti
all
yinissue(
andf
inal
l
ydecided)
i
nt hepr evi
oussuitbetween thesamepar t
iesli
ti
gating underthesamet i
tl
ein a court
,
competenttotr
ythesubsequentsui
tinwhichsuchissuehasbeenr ai
sed.

“
Resjudi
cat
aprov er
it
ateacci
pit
ur”(athi
ngadj
udgedmustbetakenast
ruth)i
stheful
lmaxi
m
whi
chhas,overthey ear
s,shrunkt o mer
e“r esjudi
cat
a”.Kunj
anNairSiv
aramanNairv.
Nar
ayananNai
r(2004)3SCC277) .

Evenaner roneousdeci
siononaquest
ionofl
awat tr
actsthedoctri
neofresjudi
catabetween
thepar t
iestoit.Thecor
rect
nessorot
herwi
seofaj udici
aldeci
sionhasnobear i
ngupont he
questionwhet herornotitoperat
esasresjudicat
a.ShahShivr
ajGopaljiv
.ED- ,Appakadh
AyiassaBi&Or s.
,AI
R1949PC302;andMohanl alGoenkav.BenoyKishnaMukher j
ee&Or s.
,
AIR1953SC65) .

InSmt .RajLakshmiDasi&Or s.v.BanamaliSen&Or s.

,AIR1953SC33,t heapexCourtwhil
e
deali
ngwiththedoctr
ineofresjudicat
aref
erredtoandrel
ieduponthejudgmentinSheopar
san
Singhv.RamnandanSingh,AIR1916PC78wher ei
nithadbeenobservedasunder:

“……..t
heruleofresj udi
cata,whi
lef
oundedonancientprecedents,i
sdict
atedbyawi sdom
whichisforallt
ime…. .Thoughther
uleoftheCodemaybet racedtoanEngl i
shsource,i
t
embodiesadoctri
nei nnowayopposedt othespir
itofthel aw asexpoundedbyt heHindu
commentator
s.VijnanesvaraandNil
akant
haincl
udet hepleaofaf ormerjudgmentamong
 Fr
iendEnLaw

t
hoseal
l
owedbyl
aw,
eachci
ti
ngf
ort
hispur
poset
het
extofKat
yay
ana,
whodescr
ibest
hepl
ea
t
hus:

'
Ifaper sonthoughdef eatedatl aw,sueagain,heshouldbeanswer
ed,‘‘y
ouwer edefeated
for
mer l
y".Thi
siscall
edt hepleaoff or
merjudgment.
’
..
.Andsotheappl
icat
ionoftherul
ebyt he
court
sinI ndi
ashouldbei nf
luencedbynot echni
calconsi
der
ati
onsofform,butbymat terof
subst
ancewi t
hintheli
mi tsal
lowedbyl aw.

I
noneoft
hecasel
awSChel
d,

Thepr i
nci
pleofr esj udicat
ai sbasedont heneedofgi vingaf inali
tytojudici
aldecisions.Whati t
saysisthatoncear esisjudi cata,i
tshal lnotbeadj udgedagai n.Primari
lyitappli
esasbet ween
pastli
ti
gationandf utureli
tigat i
on, Whenamat ter-whet heronaquest i
onoff actoraquest ion
oflawhasbeendeci dedbet weent wopar ti
esi nonesui torpr oceedingandt hedeci sionisf i
nal,
eit
herbecausenoappealwast akent oahi ghercour torbecauset heappealwasdi smi ssed,or
noappeall ies,neit
herpar tywi llbeal lowedi naf uturesui torpr oceedingbet weent hesame
parti
estocanv asst hemat teragai n.Thi spr i
ncipl
eofr esjudicataisembodi edi nr elati
ont o
suit
sinS.11oft heCodeofCi vi
lPr ocedure;butev enwher eS.11doesnotappl y,thepr incipl
e
ofresjudicatahasbeenappl iedbycour tsforthepur poseofachi evingfi
nalit
yinlitigati
on.The
resul
tofthi sisthatt heor iginalcour taswel lasanyhi ghercour tmusti nanyf utur eli
ti
gation
proceedont hebasi st hatthepr eviousdeci sionwascor r ect.
”

Appl
icabi
li
tyofResJudi
cat
a:

CaseLaw:

N Will
iams v.Lourdv
asamy (2008)5 SCC 647.Supr eme Cour
theldthatsome st r
ay
obser
vati
onsbytheTri
alJudge,i
nanearl
iercaseont hequest
ionwhichwasnotdi
rect
lyand
subst
anti
all
yini
ssue–wouldnotbart
hesubsequentsuit
.

Di
r.
,Cent
.Mar
ineFi
sher
iesRes.I
nst
.&Or
s.vA.Kanakkan&Or
s.,
(2009)17SCC253

CodeofCivi
lProcedur
e,1908-Sect
ion12-
-Resjudi
cata-
-Appl
i
cabi
l
ity
--Pri
nci
pleofresj
udi
cat
a
toappl
ytoproceedi
ngsbefor
eCAT.-
-However,whenfr
eshcauseofactionari
ses-
-Resj
udi
cat
a
wouldhav
enoappl i
cat
ion.

Pri
ncipl
eofr esjudicat
awoul dapplytopr oceedingsi
nit
iat
edbef oretheCent
ralAdministr
ati
ve
Tri
bunal.I
fthesaidpr i
nci
pleswereapplicable,t
hebartomai nt
ainaf r
eshappl
icat
ionont hesel
f
-
samecauseofact ionwoul dat
tractprovisi
onsofSection12oft heCodeofcivi
lProcedureor
thegeneralpri
nci
plesofresjudi
cata.

Ramchandr
oDagduSonav
ane(
Dead)byL.
Rs.&Or
s.v
.Vi
thuHi
roMahar(
Dead)by

LRs.&Or
s.,
(2009)10SCC273

Ci
vi
l-Res-
judi
cat
a-Appl
i
cat
ionof-Sect
ion11ofCodeofCi
vi
lPr
ocedur
e,1908Whet
hert
he
 Fr
iendEnLaw

JudgmentandDecr eepassedi nt heor igi

nalsuitwoul doper ateasr es-j
udicatainsubsequent
proceedings,i
ncl
udingt heproceedi ngsbef oretheHi ghCour tinthesecondappealandwr i
t
peti
tionfil
edbytheRespondent s-Hel d,apl eadecidedev eni nsuitforinjuncti
ontouchingthe
ti
tl
ebet weent hesamepar t
ies,woul doperateasr es-
judicata-I nt hepr esentcase,al1the
i
ssueshasbeendeci dedinearl
iersui tandhasbeenconf ir
medi ntheregularsecondappeal and
theissuedecidedther ei
nwasbi ndingont heparti
es-Eachoneoft hecondi ti
onsnecessaryto
sati
sfythetestastot heappl
icabil
ityofSect i
on11ofCPCi ssat i
sfi
ed.

Const
ruct
iveResJudi
cat
a:

CaseLaw:

TataIndustries Lt
d.v .Gr asim Industr
ies Lt
d.(2008)10 SCC 187.Thi
s case deals wit
h
j
uri
sdicti
ont oappointthearbitrat
oru/s11(6)ofArbi
tr
ati
onandConcil
i
ati
onAct,1996.Supr
eme
Courtreject
edt heargumentr ai
sedbeforetheHighCourtandhel
d–Questionofl ocusstandi
nothavingbeenr ai
sedbef oret heHighCourtdidnotsur
viv
e–itamountedt
oanabandonment
oftheissueandcannotber aisedbeforetheSupremeCourt.

Ani ssuewhichoughtt ohavebeenrai

sedearl
iercannotberaisedbythepar
tyinsuccessi
ve
roundofli
ti
gation.Ramchandr
aDagduSonavane(dead)byLrs.&Ors.v
.Vit
huHiraMahar(dead)
byLrs.&Ors.,AIR2010SC818; and

Shi
vChandraMor
e&Or
s.v
.Lt
.Gov
ernor&Or
s.,(
Civ
ilAppealNo.3352of2014deci
dedon
7.
3.2014.

Fat
imaBi
biAhmedPat
elv
.St
ateofGuj
arat(
2008)6SCC789.Supr
emeCour
t

hel
dt hatthepri
nci
pleanal
ogoustoResJudicataorconstr
uct
iveResjudi
catadoesnotapplyto
cri
mi nalcases.Wheret he ent
ir
e proceedi
ngs have been ini
ti
ated i
ll
egall
y and wi
thout
j
urisdict
ion,
insuchacase–ev enthepri
ncipl
eofResj udi
cat
a(whereverappl
icabl
e)woul
dnot
apply…

Except
ionst
oResJudi
cat
a..
:

InRajuRamsi
ngVasavev.MaheshDeoraoBhi
vapur
kar(
2008)9SCC54,t
heSupr
emeCour
t
l
aiddown3except
ionst
other
uleofResJudi
cat
a

(
i)Whenj
udgmenti
spassedwi
thoutj
uri
sdi
cti
on

(
ii
)Whenmat
teri
nvol
vesapur
equest
ionofl
aw.

(
ii
i)Whenj
udgmenthasbeenobt
ainedbycommi
tt
ingf
raudont
heCour
t.