Res Judicata

Lecture Number 6
 11. Res judicata
• 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 bee
subsequently raised, and has been heard and
finally decided by such Court.
 Explanations
Explanation I.—The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit
which has been decided prior to a 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.
 Explanations
Explanation VI.—Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a
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 .
Explanation VII.—The provisions of this section shall apply to a
proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in
this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed
as references, respectively, to a proceeding 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 asres judicata in a 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.
 Title of Explanations
1. Former Suit
2. Competent Court
3. Former Matter
4. Constructive Res-Judicata
5. Relief (Silence of Court)
6. Representative Suit
7. Execution Proceeding
8. Limited Jurisdiction
 What is Res Judicata?
• Res judicata is a plea.
• Applied to give finality to a lis  in original
or appellate proceedings.
• The doctrine in substance states that an
issue or a point decided and having
achieved finality, should not be allowed to
be open and agitation over and over again.
 Meaning
• “res” – subject matter or dispute
• “judicata” – adjudged or decided or
adjudicated
Thu, Res Judicata means “matter adjudged”
or a “dispute decided”.
 Scope
• This doctrine is applicable to all civilized legal system.
As in the Roman Law, a defendant could successfully
ex
challenge a suit filed by a plaintiff on the plea of “
captio res judicata” and   It was said, “one suit and one
decision is enough for any single dispute”.

• Justice Das Gupta, in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal v.

Deorjin Debi (1960) has explained the doctrine of in the
simplest word 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  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,
 Object
The doctrine of res judicata  is based on three
maxims:
• Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem
causa  – no man should be vexed twice for
the same cause;
• Interest reipubliace ut sit finis litium  – it is in
the interest of the State that there should be
an end to a litigation;
• Res judicata pro veritate occipitur  – a judicial
decision must be accepted as correct.
 Application of Doctrine
• Founded on the principles of equity, justice,
and good conscience. 
• Applies to all civil and criminal proceedings
and equally to all quasi-judicial proceedings
before tribunals
• Applicable to both the parties to a suit and
not against the defendant alone.
• A mixed question of the fact and law and
has to be specifically pleaded.
 Conditions for Res Judicata
• Matter in a suit – A matter cannot be considered 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
proposition.
• Same parties or parties under whom any of them claim – next
important condition is that parties should be the same. A party is a
person whose name is on the record at the time of the decision.
Besides, a party may be a person who has mediated in the suit.
• Litigation under the same title – It means that the subsequent suit
must have litigated under the same title as that of the former suit.
• Competent Court –It is essential that the court which tried the
former suit must have been a court competent to try the
subsequent suit.
• Finality – It states that the court has exercised its judicial mind and
has, after argument and consideration, concluded the contested
matter.
 Matter Directly and Substantially in
Issue between the Same Parties
• Directly means directly and immediately
without intervention.
• Substantially means essentially, materially
or in a substantial manner. A matter can
be said to be substantially in issue if it is
of importance for the decision of the case.
 Constructive Res Judicata

• An artificial form of res judicata.

• Provides if a plea could have been taken by a party in a
proceeding between him and the defendant in the previous
matter but did not take.
• then, he will not be permitted to take plea against the same
party in the following proceeding with reference to the same
matter. 
• This is opposed to public policy on which the principle of res
judicata is based.
• As it can cause harassment and hardship to the defendant.
• It helps in raising the bar. Hence this rule is known as the rule
of constructive res judicata which is actually an aspect of
expansion of the general principles of res judicata. 
 Case Law
• In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain, A sub-
inspector was dismissed from the service of D.I.G. So, he
challenged the order of dismissal by filing a writ petition in the
High Court. He stated that he did not get a rational opportunity
of being heard before the passing of the order. Though, the
argument was negatived and the petition was dismissed.
Therefore, he again filed a petition on the ground that he was
appointed by the I.G.P. and had no power to dismiss him. The
defendant contended that the suit was barred by constructive
res judicata. However, the trial court, the first appellate court
as well as the High Court held that the suit was not barred by
the doctrine of res judicata. But the Supreme Court held that
the suit was barred by constructive res judicata as the plea
was within the knowledge of the plaintiff, and he could have
taken this argument in his former suit. 
 Difference between Res Judicata
and Withdrawal of Suit
• Order 23, Rule 1 of the code is related to
withdrawal of suits. It states that where the
plaintiff withdraws the suit or gives up his claim
without the permission of the court, he will be
disallowed from instituting a fresh suit in respect
of the same cause of action.
• The dissimilarity between res judicata and
withdrawal of suit is the way that while in the res
judicata, the issue is heard and settled by the
parties and in the case of withdraw of the suit,
the plaintiff himself withdraws or surrenders his
case before it is adjudicated on merits.
 Difference between Res judicata
and Estoppel
• Estoppel is basically related to the law of evidence and,
prevents a person from saying one thing at one time and
contradicting it later, while res judicata preventing a man from
affirming the same thing in successive litigation.
• Justice Mahumad in Sita Ram v. Amir Begam  (1886) stated
that probably the shortest way to explain the distinction
between the plea of res judicata and an Estoppel, is to say that
as the former prohibits the court from entering into an inquiry
at all as to a matter previously adjudicated upon, the latter
forbids a party after the inquiry has already been entered upon,
from proving anything which would deny his own previous
declarations or acts, to the unfairness to another party who,
relying upon those declarations or acts, has changed his
position. Or it can be said that res judicata prohibits an inquiry
whereas estoppel is only a piece of evidence.
 Res judicata between Co-
defendants
There are certain conditions which should be
satisfied for an adjudication to operate as
res judicata between co-defendants:
1. A conflict of interest between co-
defendants
2. Conflict must be decided to give relief to
the plaintiff
3. Question must have been finally decided
4. Co-defendants must be necessary or
proper parties in the former suit
 Res Judicata and Rule of Law
• The doctrine of res judicata is also applicable to writ proceedings
under Article 32 of the Constitution.
• The Supreme Court in the landmark case of Daryao v. State of U.P.
(1961) has widely dealt with the question of applicability of the
principle of res judicata in writ proceedings and laid down certain
principles.
• In this case, petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of
Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution and the suit was
dismissed. They filed independent petitions in the Supreme
Court under the writ jurisdiction of Article 32 of the Constitution.
• Later, the defendants raised an objection regarding the petition
by declaring that the prior decision of the High Court would be
operated as res judicata to a petition under Article 32. The
Supreme Court dismissed and disagreed with the petitions.
• It was held by the court that the rule of res judicata applies to a
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. If a petition is filed
by the petitioner in the High Court under Article 226  of the
Constitution and it is dismissed on the basis of merits, it would
function as res judicata to bar a alike petition in the Supreme
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Thank You