WHEN ARE THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT RELEVANT (SEC.

40-43)

➢ INTRODUCTION:
The general principle of law is that judgments whether previous or subsequent are not
relevant in any case or proceeding. Every case has to be decided upon its own facts as they
exist between the parties to it and not by reference to the judgments in other cases. A
judgment in the criminal trial is not relevant to the civil case except for the purpose of
showing the fact of trial and conviction for it.
Judgments are, however, relevant facts of great importance. Thus, to the general principle
that judgments are not relevant, the Act recognizes a few exceptions (Secs. 40-43).
• PREVIOUS JUDGMENTS RELEVANT TO BAR A SECOND SUIT OR TRAIL
(SEC. 40)
The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any court from
taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact when the question is, whether
such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trail.
This principle is based on public policy that a person should not be harassed again and
again for the same cause.
1. Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa - It means that no person should be vexed
annoyed or harassed two times for the same cause;
2. Interest republicae ut sit finis litium - It means that it is in the interest of the state that
there should be an end of litigation; and
3. Re judicata pro veritate occipitur - Decision of the court should be adjudged as true.
The object of the provision of this chapter is to avoid the suit and to save precious time of
the multiplicity of the suit and to save Court. There should be end of litigation in the interest
of justice S.11 of C.FC deals with Doctrine of res Judicata which signifies that no court will
have the power to try any fresh suit or issues which has been already settled in the former
suit between the same parties.
Hence in section 40 of Indian Evidence Act the previous judgement, order or decreet in
decree in the previous case is admissible to bar a subsequent trial.
Radhe Mohan vs Barel Lal 1972: Judgement of criminal with Shy court is relevant only
about conviction and acquittal.
Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad AIR, 2009: A judgement of criminal court is not
admissible in a civil suit but an admission of guilt made by a party in a criminal proceeding
is admissible in subsequent civil proceeding
• RELEVANCY OF CERTAIN JUDGEMENT IN PROBATE, ETC. JURISDICTION
(SEC. 41)
Section 41 deals with what is known as judgement in rem, which not only bind the parties
at the representatives to it, against the but also are binding as against the whole world.
For a judgment, order or decree to be binding and conclusive proof under section 41 the
following conditions have to be satisfied –
1) The judgement must be a final judgement.
2) The court delivering the judgement must be competent.
3) The judgement must have been delivered by the court in the exercise of Probate, exercise
of Matrimonial, Admiralty or Insolvency jurisdiction.
4) The judgement must confer on or take away from any person any legal character or
declare that any person is entitled to such legal character or declared that any person is
entitled to any specific thing absolutely.
• RELEVANCY AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENT, ORDER OR DECREES, OTHER
THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN SECTION 41. (SEC.42)
Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Section 41, are relevant if they
relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the inquiry; nut such judgments, orders or
decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state.
Illustrations- A sues B for trespass on his land, B alleges the existence of a public right of
way over the land, which A denies.
The existence of a decree in favour of the defendant, in a suit by A against C or a trespass
on the same land, in 8 trespass which C alleged the existence of the same right of way, is
relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of ways exists.
U/S 42 judgement, order or decrees are admissible not as res judicata but as evidence
although they may not be between the same parties, provided the related to matters parties
provided the re of public nature relevant to the enquiry. Under Section 40 and 41
judgements are admitted as a conclusive proof about the matters they relate to. But, under
section 42 piece of judgement is admitted as a piece of evidence.
INGREDIENTS:
i) Judgment relating to matters of a public nature are relevant.
ii) Though such judgments are not conclusive proof of what they state.
• COMPARISON OF SECTION 40, 41 AND 42:

Section 40 admits as evidence all judgments inter parte which would operate as res-judicata in
a second suit.

Section 41 admits judgments in rem as evidence in all subsequent suits where the existence of
the right is in issue, whether between the same parties or not.

Section 42 admits all judgments not as res-judicata, but as evidence, although they may not be
between the same parties, provided they relate to matters of public nature
relevant to the enquiry.

• JUDGMENT, ETC., OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN SECTION 40 TO 42

WHEN RELEVANT. (SEC. 43)
Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Sections 40, 41 and 42, are
irrelevant. unless they are relevant in following conditions:
a) When the existence of such judgement, order or decree, is the fact in Issue
b) When they are relevant under some other provision of the Indian Evidence Act.
Illustration: A prosecutes B for adultery with C, A's wife.
B denies that C is A's wife, but the court convicts B of adultery.
Afterwards, C is prosecuted for bigamy in marrying B during A's lifetime. C says that
she never was A's wife.
The judgment against B is irrelevant as against C.