ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

MALAPPURAM CENTRE, KERALA

Code of civil procedure

PROJECT
Topic: “Res Judicata"its nature, scope,object,
extent and applicability.

Submitted to, Submitted by,

Mr.Aliniyas V. Kunjali Singh
Assistant Professor GK7931
Department of law 18BALLB34
Topic Page no.
Introduction 3
Res Judicata explained 3-4
Section 11 4-5
Nature of Res Judicata 5
Scope of Res-judicata 5-6
Object of res-judicata 6-7
Essentials 7-8
Extent and Applicability 8-9
Exceptions to plea of Res- 9-10
judicata
Judicial Pronouncements 10
Criticism of Res-judicata 10-11
Conclusion 11
References 12
Introduction
Res Judicata in Latin means “a matter (already) judged.” It is also called as Claim Preclusion. It
is a common law practice meant to bar re-litigation of cases between the same parties in the court.
"Res judicata pro veritate occipitur" is the full latin maxim which has, over the years, shrunk to
mere "Res Judicata". It comes under S.11. Of The Civil Procedure Code – 1908.
Res Judicata is a phrase which has been evolved from a Latin maxim, which stands for ‘the thing
has been judged’, meaning thereby 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 the criminal
legal system. The term is also used to mean as to ‘bar re-litigation’ of such cases between the
same parties, which is different between the two legal systems. Once a final judgment has been
announced in a lawsuit, the subsequent judges who are confronted with a suit that is identical to
or substantially the same as the earlier one, they would apply the Res Judicata doctrine ‘to preserve
the effect of the first judgment’. This is to prevent injustice to the parties of a case supposedly
finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources and time of he Judicial
System.
The legal concepts of res judicata arose as a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case
supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources in the court
system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier once but
also prevents litigants from multiplying judgment, and confusion.

Res Judicata

Explained –
The doctrine of Res Judicata ( Sec. 11, CPC) i.e. the rule of conclusiveness of a judgment is based
on the three maxims.
1- No man should be vexed twice for the same cause.
2- It is in the interest of state that there should be an end to a ligitation.
3- A judicial decision must be accepted as correct.
The Principle of Res Judicata is founded on the ancient Indian Principle of Pragnyaya (Previous
Judgment).
This doctrine has been explained In the simplest possible manner by Das Gupta, J. In the case of
Satyadhan Ghoshal vs. Deorjin Debi1 in the following words.
“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 is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily it apply 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 2 parties in one suit or proceeding 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 poroceeding between the same parties to
canvas the matter again.”

Section 11
Section 11 of the Civil procedure code reads thus:
“No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has
been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between
parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent
to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has
been heard and finally decided by such Court.

Explanation I- The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to
the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.

Explanation II.- For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined
irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.

Explanation III.- The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one
party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.

Explanation IV.- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or
attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue
in such suit.

Explanation V.- Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree,
shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.

1 AIR 1960 SC , 941: (1960) 3 SCR 590

Explanation VI- Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of public right or of a private right
claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the
purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.
1[Explanation VII.- The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution
of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as
references, respectively, to proceedings for the execution of the decree, question arising in such
proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.

Explanation VIII.-An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction,
competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding
that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in
which such issue has been subsequently raised.]”

Nature of Res Judicata

The Doctrine of Res Judicata strives to strike a balance between the two largely separated poles.
One pit assures an efficient judicial system that renders final judgments with certainty and prevents
the inequity of a defendant having to defend the same claim or issue of law repeatedly. On the
other hand, it protects the plaintiff's interest in having issues and claims fully and fairly litigated.
The basic point involved in the Nature 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 barring the other party to file a multiple
numbers of suits either for justice or for harassing the other party. Res judicata includes two related
concepts: claim preclusion, and issue preclusion (also called collateral estoppel), though
sometimes Res Judicata is used more narrowly to mean only claim preclusion.2 Claim preclusion
focuses on barring a suit from being brought again on a legal cause of action that has already been
finally decided between the parties. Issue preclusion bars the re litigation of factual issues that
have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier claim.
It is often difficult to determine which, if either, of these, apply to later lawsuits that are seemingly
related because many causes of action can apply to the same factual situation and vice versa.
Therefore, the nature of the doctrine of Res Judicata is to enable the Courts to deliver the justice
and then to dismiss or freeze the other active suits which are of the very same nature although is
at a different stage. Such a role enables the Court to dismiss the matter from its jurisdiction and
also the jurisdiction of the other Courts which are at the same level.

Scope of Res Judicata

2 Narayan Prabhu Venkateswara vs. Narayan Prabhu Krishna, (1977) 2 SCC

Res- judicata includes two related concepts: claim preclusion and issue preclusion (also called
collateral estoppels or issue estoppels) through sometime res judicata is used more narrowly to
mean only claim preclusion.
• Claim preclusion bars a suit from being brought again on an event which was the subject
of a previous legal cause of action that has already been finally decided between the parties
of those in relation with a party.
• Issue preclusion bars the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been
necessarily determined by a judge or jury as a part of an earlier case.
• It is often difficult to determine which, if either, of these concepts, apply to later lawsuits
that are seemingly related because many causes of action can supply to the same factual
situation and vice versa. The scope of an earlier judgment is probably the most difficult
question that judges must revolve in applying res judicata. Sometimes merely part of the
action will be affected. For example, a single claim may be struck from a complaint, or a
single factual issue may be removed from reconsideration in the new trial.

For example, In the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Smt. Deorajin Debi3, where the principle of
Res Judicata is invoked in the case of the different stages of proceedings in the same suit the nature
of the proceedings, the scope of the enquiry which the adjectival law provides for the decision
being reached as well as the specific provision made on matters touching such decisions are some
of the factors to be considered before the principle is held to be applicable. Order IX Rule 7 does
not put an- end to the litigation nor does it involve the determination of any issues in controversy
in the suit. A decision or direction in an interlocutory proceeding of the type provided for by Order
IX Rule 7 is not of the kind which can operate as Res Judicata so as to bar the hearing on the merits
of an application under Order IX Rule 13

Object Of Res Judicata.

The doctrine of res judicata is based on the following three maxims:
1. ‘Nemo debet bis vaxari pro una et eadem cansa’ which means none should be vexed twice
for the same cause;
2. ‘Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium’ which means that it is in the interest of the state that
there should be an end to litigation;
3. ‘Res judicata pro veritate accipitur’ which means that a judicial decision must be accepted
as correct,

3 AIR 1960 SC , 941: (1960) 3 SCR 590

The first ground is based on private interest whereas the other two take care of public policy and
larger interest of the society.
In the case of Lal Chand v. Radha Krishan4, it was said that the principle is founded on justice,
equity and good conscience. Once a final judgment has been announced in a lawsuit, the
subsequent judges who are confronted with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as
the earlier one, they would apply the Res Judicata. Doctrine to preserve the effect of the first
judgment. This is to prevent injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps
mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources and time of the Judicial System.
Thus, this doctrine is a combined result of the public policy which reflects in maxim (b) and (c)
and privacy policy in maxim (a). This Doctrine applies to all the proceedings whether criminal or
civil. Without this rule, there would be no end to litigation and the rights of a human being would
be involved in endless confusion and injustice did undercover. In the absence of this Doctrine,
there would be no end to litigation. Hence, a rich and malicious person will vex a poor opponent
by repetitive suit resulting in relinquishing his rights.

Essentials to Res-judicata
For the application of this section, the following conditions must be satisfied:

• Matter in a suit –the expression “matter in issue” means the rights litigated between the
parties, i.e., the facts on which the right is claimed and the law applicable to the
determination of that issue. A matter cannot be said to have been directly and substantially
in issue in a suit unless it is alleged by one party and denied or admitted, either expressly
or by necessary implication.
• Same parties or parties under whom any of them claim – Parties are a person whose name
is on the record at the time of the decision, and a party may be a person who has intervened
in the suit. The term “Party “means a person whose name appears on the record at the time
of the decision. Also, here, persons other than parties would include privies, persons
represented by parties, and the principle of Res Judicata would bind them too.
• Litigation under the same title –The term “ same title” means same capacity. Title refers
to the capacity or interest of a party, that is to say, whether he sues or is sued for himself
in his own interest or for himself as representing the interest of another or as representing
the interest of others along with himself and it has nothing to do with the particular cause
of action on which he sues or is sued. Litigating under the same title means that the demand
should be of the same quality in the second suit as was in the first suit. That the parties to
the subsequent suit must have litigated under the same title in the former suit.

4 1977 AIR 789, 1977 SCR (2) 522

 • Competent Court –the expression competent to try means competent to try the subsequent
suit if brought at the time the first suit was brought. In other words, the relevant point of
time for deciding the question of competence of the court is the date when the former suit
was brought and not the date when the subsequent suit was filed. In the subsequent suit, it
is necessary that the court which tried the former suit must have been a court competent to
try the subsequent suit.
• Finality – When the court has exercised its judicial mind and has, after argument and
consideration, come to a decision on a contested matter.

EXTENT AND APPLICABILITY

The doctrine of res judicata is a fundamental concept based on public policy and private interest.
It is conceived in the lqrger public interest which requires that every litigation must come to an
end. It is applicable to civil suits, execution proceedings, arbitration proceedings, taxation
matters, industrial adjudication, writ petitions, administrative orders, interim orders,
criminal proceedings etc.The doctrine of res judicata codified in section 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is not exhaustive.
This doctrine is however, neither applicable to summary dismissal nor to compromise and
consent decrees. The doctrine of res judicata is not confined to the limits prescribed in Section 11,
Civil Procedure Code. The underlying principle of that doctrine is that there should be finality in
litigation and that a person should not be vexed twice over in respect of the same matter. The
essential condition for the applicability is that the subsequent suit or proceeding is founded on the
same cause of action on which the former suit was founded. It is a debatable point whether the
doctrine of res judicata should be interpreted liberally or strictly. However, keeping in view its
basis and objective, which is based on public policy, it can be reasonably asserted that the doctrine
of res judicata should be interpreted liberally.

Test of applicability
In Jaswant Singh v. Custodian5 the Court held that in order to decide the question whether a
subsequent proceeding is barred by res judicata it is necessary to examine the question with
reference to
• forum or competence of the Court

5 (1985),3 SCC 648

• parties and their representatives
• matters in issue
• matters which ought to have been made the ground for attack or defence in the former
suit
• final decision.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE PLEA OF RES JUDICATA

1. Judgment in original suit obtained by the fraud – if a court thinks that the judgment of former
suit is obtained by the fraud, then the doctrine of the res judicata is not applied.

2. When previous SLP is dismissed – When special leave petition is dismissed without
adjudication or decision then res judicata should not be applied. For obtaining Doctrine of Res
Judicata, the formal suit should be decided finally by the competent court.

3. A different cause of action – Section 11 will not be applied when there is a different cause of
action in the subsequent suits. The court cannot bar a subsequent suit if it contains the different
cause of action.

4. When there is Interlocutory Order – Interlocutory order is the interim order, decree or sentence
passed by the court. A principle of the Res Judicata will be not applied when an interlocutory order
is passed on the former suit. It is because in Interlocutory order immediate relief is given to the
parties and it can be altered by subsequent application and there is no finality of the decision.

5. Waiver of a decree of Res Judicata – Decree of Res Judicata is a plea in the bar which party
must waive. If a party did not raise the plea of res judicata then the matter will be decided against
him. It is the duty of an opposite party to make the court aware about the adjudication of matter in
former suit. If a party fails to do so, the matter is decided against him.

6. Court not competent to decide – When the former suit is decided by the court who has no
jurisdiction to decide the matter then the doctrine of res judicata is not applied to the subsequent
suit.
7. When there is a change in Law – When there is a change in the law and new laws bring new
rights to the parties then such rights are not barred by Section 11.

In the case of P. Bandhopadhya and others v. Union of India6 and others, The appeal was made
in the Bombay High Court and the appellants asserted that they will be entitled to receive an
amount as damages. The Supreme Court bench held that the appellants were not entitled to receive
damages which were pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules 1972. They were entitled to
receive benefits as the case was barred by the principle of res judicata.
In the case of Beliram and Brothers v. Chaudhari Mohammed Afzal7, it was held that a minors
suit cannot be brought by the guardian of the minors. However, it was brought in collaboration
with the defendants and the decree obtained was by fraud within the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
and it will not operate res judicata.

Some Judicial Pronouncements related to Res Judicata

In the case of Talluri Venkata Seshayya vs. Thadvikonda Kotiswara Rao8, a suit was filed in the
Court for the purpose of declaring certain temples public temples and for setting aside alienation
of the endowed property by the manager thereof. A similar suit was dismissed by the Court two
years ago and the plaintiffs here contended that it was the gross negligence on the part of the
plaintiffs (of the previous suit) and hence the doctrine of Res Judicata should not be applied.

In the case of Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh9, 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. Even if it is said that there was a final order, in a dispute of this type, it
would be difficult to entertain the plea of Res Judicata.

These writ petitions were filed as early as 1983 more than three years before the enactment came
into force. The principle of Res Judicata does not apply strictly to public interest litigations. The
procedural laws are not fully applicable to public interest litigation cases. Where the prior public

6 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3149 OF 2019 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10663 of 2016)

7(1948) 50 BOMLR 674

8 (1937) 39 BOMLR 317
9 1985 AIR 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169
interest relates to illegal mining, subsequent public interest litigation to protect the environment is
not barred.

Criticism
Res Judicata does not restrict the appeals process, which is considered a linear extension of the
same lawsuit as the suit travels up (and back down) the appellate court ladder. Appeals are
considered the appropriate manner by which to challenge a judgment rather than trying to start a
new trial. Once the appeals process is exhausted or waived, Res Judicata will apply even to
judgment that is contrary to law.
There are limited exceptions to Res Judicata that allow a party to attack the validity of the original
judgment, even outside of appeals. These exceptions—usually called collateral attacks—are
typically based on procedural or jurisdictional issues, based not on the wisdom of the earlier court's
decision but its authority or on the competence of the earlier court to issue that decision. A
collateral attack is more likely to be available (and to succeed) in judicial systems with multiple
jurisdictions, such as under federal governments, or when a domestic court is asked to enforce or
recognize the judgment of a foreign court.
In addition, in matters involving due process, cases that appear to be Res Judicata may be re-
litigated. An example would be the establishment of a right to counsel. People who have had
liberty taken away (i.e., imprisoned) may be allowed to be re-tried with a counselor as a matter of
fairness.

Conclusion
Res judicata took its place first in the Code of Civil Procedure from Common Law and then into
the Indian Legal System. If either of the parties in a case approaches the same court for the
judgment of the same issue then the suit will be struck by the doctrine of res judicata. Res judicata
plays a role in administrative law as well. It helps to administer how efficiently the Judiciary works
and disposes of the case. The doctrine of res judicata becomes applicable where there is more than
one petition filed in the same or in some other court of India with the same parties and same facts.
The parties involved in a case may file the same suit again just to harass the reputation of the
opposite party and may do to get compensation twice. So to prevent such overloads and extra
cases, the doctrine of res judicata plays a major role and importance in the Code of Civil Procedure.
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.

References
1. C.K TAKWANI, CIVIL PROCEDURE with Limitation Act,1963, Eastern book company pvt. Ltd.,
Delhi, 8th Edition.
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/
3. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-
data?actid=AC_CEN_3_20_00051_190805_1523340333624&sectionId=33344&section
no=11&orderno=11