Introduction
Res means "subject-matter" or "dispute" and "Judicata" means "adjudged", "decided" or "adjudicated". "Res Judicata" thus means "a matter adjudged" or "a dispute decided". The doctrine of res judicata is a fundamental principle in legal systems worldwide, aimed at bringing finality to litigation and preventing multiple lawsuits on the same issue. In India, this principle is enshrined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908.
The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions and it stipulates that what is once decided will 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, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again. In this blog, the concept of Res Judicata will be discussed in detail with relevant case laws.
The object of Res Judicata
The doctrine of res judicata is based on three maxims:
(a) Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no man should be vexed twice for the same cause);
(b) interest reipublicae ut sit finis litiunm (it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation); and
(C) res judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct).
The doctrine of Res Judicata takes into account both the public interest on the one hand and the interest of private parties to the suit. The rule of Res Judicata is applicable in all cases whether civil or criminal. If such doctrine will not be there then there would be endless litigation between the same parties for the same cause which is against the public policy and rights of persons would be involved in endless confusion and great injustice will be done to the innocent winning party. A rich and malicious litigant may succeed in vexing his poor opponent by repetitive suits and actions resulting in relinquishing his rights.
The leading case on the doctrine of res judicata is the Duchess of Kingstone case, wherein Sir William de Grey made the following remarkable observations:
"From the variety of cases relative to judgments being given in evidence in civil suits, these two deductions seem to follow as generally true firstly, that judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is, as a plea, a bar, or as evidence conclusive, between the same parties, upon the same matter, directly in question in another court; secondly, that the judgment of a court of exclusive jurisdiction, directly on the point, is, in like manner, conclusive upon the same matter, between the same parties, coming incidentally in question in another court, for a different purpose."
Therefore, res judicata contributes to the smooth functioning of the legal system by providing closure to litigants, minimizing contradictory judgments, and enhancing the overall efficiency and fairness of the judicial process.
Conditions for the Application of Res Judicata
By the bare reading of Section 11 of CPC which contains the principle of res judicata, it is clear that it contains certain condition, if fulfilled the principle of res judicata will apply and the subsequent suit will be barred. It is not every matter decided in a former suit that will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. To constitute a matter as res judicata under Section 11, the following conditions must be satisfied:
- The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (Explanation I) or constructively (Explanation IV) in the former suit (Explanation I). (Explanation VII is to be read with this condition.)
- The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim. (Explanation VI is to be read with this condition.)
- Such parties must have been litigating under the same title in the former suit.
- The court which decided the former suit must be a court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised. (Explanations II and VIII are to be read with this condition.)
- The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the former suit. (Explanation V is to be read with this condition.)
These are the conditions required for the subsequent suit to be barred. If the answer to all the conditions is affirmative, then the doctrine of res judicata will come into play.
What is matter directly and substantially in the Issue?
A matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. "Directly" means directly, at once, immediately, without intervention. The term has been used in contradistinction to "collaterally or incidentally" (Amalgamated Coalfield ltd v Janpada Sabha). A fact cannot be said to be directly in issue if the judgment stands whether that fact exists or does not exist. There is no hard and fast rule whether any issue is directly in issue, and it depends on the facts of each case.
"Substantially" on the other hand means essentially, materially, or in a substantial manner. It is something short of certainty but indeed more than mere suspicion. It means "in effect though not in express terms" (Pandurang RamChandra v Shanti Ramchandra). A matter can be said to be substantially in issue if it is important for the final decision of the court and there can be no hard and fast rule to determine the same and it again depends on the facts of the case.
Constructive Res Judicata
The rule of res judicata is limited to the matter in issue which is actually alleged by one party and either denied or admitted by the other party expressly or impliedly (Explanation III). In general, the language of the main section indicates the basic rule of res judicata but if we move to the explanations provided, then we can identify the two form of res judicata. First, which is being express and parties to the suit make claims upfront in the pleadings as provided in explanation III. Second, where the parties could have raised the issue in the former suit and could have reasonably demanded the relief and they have the knowledge of the same then, in such cases where any matter which might and ought to have been the ground of defence or attack in the former suit, it shall be deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue and the parties cannot make a plea in the subsequent suit regarding this relief which they have deliberately did not take into consideration in the former suit.
The rule of constructive res judicata engrafted in Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code is an "artificial form of res judicata"',and provides that if a plea could have been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and his opponent, he should not be permitted to take that plea against the same party in a subsequent proceeding with reference to the same subject matter. That is opposed to considerations of public policy on which the doctrine of res judicata is based and would mean harassment and hardship to the opponent. Besides, if such a course is allowed to be adopted, the doctrine of finality of judgments pronounced by courts would also be materially affected (Devi Lal Modi v STO). Thus, it helps in raising the bar of res judicata which, in reality amplification of the general principles of res judicata. This is because this rule is called as Constructive Res Judicata.
In the case of Workmen v Board of Trustees, Cochin of trustees Port Trust, the Supreme Court explained the principle of constructive res judicata in the following words: "If by any judgment or order any matter in issue has been correctly and explicitly decided, the decision operates as res judicata and bars the trial of an identical issue in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties. The principle of res judicata also comes into play when by the judgment and order a decision of a particular issue is implicit in it, that is, it must be deemed to have been necessarily decided by implication; then also the principle of res judicata on that issue is directly applicable. When any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in a former proceeding but was not so made, then such a matter in the eye of law, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to bring about finality in it is deemed to have been constructively in issue and, therefore, is taken as decided
In State of U.P. v Nawab Hussain, A, a sub-inspector
of police, was dismissed from service by the D.I.G. He
challenged the order of dismissal by filing a writ petition
in the High Court on the ground that he was not afforded
a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the passing of the order. The contention was, however,
negatived and the petition was dismissed. He then filed a suit and raised an
additional ground that since he was appointed by the I.G.P., the D.I.G. had no
power to dismiss him. The State contended that the suit was barred by
constructive res judicata. The trial court, the first appellate court as well as
the High Court held that the suit was not barred by res judicata. Allowing the
appeal filed by the State, the Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by
constructive res judicata as the plea was within the knowledge of the plaintiff
and could well have been taken in the earlier writ petition. The same
principle applies to pleas which were taken but not pressed at the time of
hearing.
Case Laws
Daryayo v State of UP [1962] 1 SCR 574
In this case, the Supreme Court has placed the doctrine of res judicata on a still broader foundation. In that case, the petitioners had filed writ petitions in the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution, and they were dismissed. Thereafter, they filed substantive petitions in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for the same relief and on the same grounds. The respondents raised a preliminary objection maintainability of the petition by contending that the prior decision of the High Court would operate as res judicata to a petition under Article 32. The Supreme Court upheld the contention and dismissed the petitions.
Escort Farm Ltd v commissioner, Nainital AIR 2004 SC 2186
In this case, it was held that the doctrine of res judicate in substance means that an issue or a point decided and attaining finality should not be allowed to be reopened and reagitated twice over. The literal meaning of res is “everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject-matter or status” and res judicata literally means: “a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment”.
Section 11 CPC engrafts this doctrine with a purpose that “a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action”
Alka Gupta v Narender Kumar Gupta 2010 10 SCC 141
It was held that the plea of res judicata is a restraint on the right of a plaintiff to have an adjudication of his claim. The plea must be clearly established, more particularly where the bar sought is on the basis of constructive res judicata. The plaintiff who is seeking to be prevented by the bar of constructive res judicata should have notice about the plea and have an opportunity to put forth his contentions against the same.
Gulam Abbas & Ors v State of U.P. & Ors 1982 1 SCC 71
Section 11 is not exhaustive of the general doctrine of res judicata and though the rule of res judicata as enacted in s. 11 has some technical aspects the general doctrine is founded on considerations of high public policy to achieve two objectives, namely, that there must be a finality to litigation and that individuals should not be harassed twice over with the same kind of litigation. Technical aspects of section 11 of CPC, as for instance, pecuniary or subject-wise competence of the earlier forum to adjudicate the subject-matter or grant reliefs sought in the subsequent litigation would be immaterial when the general doctrine of res judicata is to be invoked.
Jaswant Singh & Anr v The Custodian of Evacuee Property 1985 (3) SCC 648
It was held in this case that in order to the defence of res judicata may succeed it is necessary to show that not only the cause of action was the same but also that the plaintiff had an opportunity of getting the relief which he is now seeking in the former proceedings. The test is whether the claim in the subsequent suit or proceedings is in fact founded upon the same cause of action which was the foundation of the former suit or proceedings. If cause of action for the proceeding has no relation whatsoever to the defence which may be set up, nor does it depend on the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff or the applicant. It refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the plaint or the application as the case may be as the cause of action or in the other words to the media upon which the plaintiff or the applicant asks the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.
Conclusion
The principle of res judicata serves as a cornerstone in the judicial system, ensuring the finality of judgments and preventing the endless litigation of the same issues. By upholding this doctrine, courts promote fairness, stability, and efficiency, allowing parties to move forward with certainty once a dispute has been resolved. Understanding res judicata not only underscores the importance of respecting judicial decisions but also highlights the value of judicial economy and the need to avoid the misuse of legal resources. As we navigate the complexities of law, res judicata remains a vital guardrail that maintains the integrity and order of the legal process.