Res Judicata

            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.

            A case in which there has been a final judgement and is no longer subject to appeal, the doctrine of Res Judicata bars (precludes) continued litigation of such matter between the same parties. Thus in case of Res Judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court.

Res Judicata aims to prevent

·         Injustice to the parties of a case that has been supposedly concluded.

·         Unnecessary waste of Court resources.

·         Prevent Multiplying of judgements.

·         Recovery of damages from the defendant twice for the same injury.

Res Judicata can also be related to

·         Claim Preclusion                           

·         Issue Preclusion 

Claim Preclusion: It 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 as part of earlier claim.

NB: This doesn’t include the process of Appeal , as it is considered to the appropriate way to challenge a judgement. Once the appeal process is exhausted or barred by limitation, the Res Judicata will apply to the decision.

The Three Maxims

            Doctrine of Res Judicata or Rule of Conclusive Judgement is based on the following three maxims:

1)       NEMO DEBET LIS VEXARI PRO EADEM CAUSA- No Man to Be Vexed Twice For The Same Cause.

2)      INTEREST REPUBLICAE UT SIT FINIS LITIUM- It is in the Interest of the State That There Should Be End To Litigation.

3)      RE JUDICATA PRO VERITATE OCCIPITUR- A Judicial Decision Should Be Accepted As Correct.

Ashok Kumar V National Insurance Co 1998

                  S.C observed that the first legal maxim takes care of the private interest and the next two of the larger interest of the society. 


Ingredients of S.11 CPC – Rule of Conclusive Judgement:

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 claiming  under them, litigating under the same title

-          In a court competent to try such suit

-          Or a suit in which the matter has been subsequently raised

-          And has been heard and finally decided by such court

The following are also to be taken into account:

1)      Former suit denotes a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question, and not if it was prior to this suit. i.e. the cut-off is date of judgement and not the date of institution of the suit.

2)      Competency of a Court is to be decided, irrespective of the right to appeal from a former suit.

3)      The matter referred to in this suit must have been alleged by one party and either accepted or refused by the other party (expressly/impliedly).

4)      Any matter which might or ought to have been made ground of attack/defence in such former suit, shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit (Constructive Res Judicata).

5)      If any relief was claimed in plaint and was not granted expressly, it would be deemed to have been refused in such former suit.

6)      When persons litigate bonafide in respect of a public / private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested for the purpose of S.11 , will be deemed as claiming under persons litigating.

7)      It is also to be remembered that, a Court of limited jurisdiction where the former suit was instituted and decided upon, shall operate as Res Judicata, even if the Court of limited jurisdiction is not competent to try the subsequent suit.

8)      This S.11 applies to execution proceedings also.

In Slochana Amma V Narayana Nair 1994:    Held, the doctrine of Res Judicata applies to quasi judicial proceedings before tribunals also.

In  Govndaswamy V Kasturi Ammal 1998:     Held, the Doctrine of Res Judicata applies to the plaintiff as well as the defendant.

In Umayal Achi V MPM Ramanathan Chettiar:                       Held, the correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon whether or not it operates as Res Judicata.

S.11 Mandatory Provision:

            S.11 is mandatory and not directory in nature. The judgement in a former suit can be avoided only by taking recourse to s.44 Indian Evidence Act on grounds of fraud or collusion.

Beli Ram Brothers V Chaudari Mhd Afzal

            It was held, that, when it was established that the guardian of the minor had acted in collusion with the defendant, it doesn’t operate as Res Judicata and can be set aside invoking S.44 Indian Evidence Act.

Jallur Venkata Seshayya V Tahdaviconda Koteswara Rao 1937

            Held, that, gross negligence in former suit doesn’t amount to fraud or collusion and thus acts as bar to subsequent suit.

Public Interest Litigation:

            The concept of PIL was an innovation of Judicial Activism of Indian Supreme Court, and it is general rule f PIL that procedural laws are not fully applicable to them. In case of Res Judicata , it is applicable only when the former suit was bonafide in nature, further more it will not act as a shield in cases where public good is threatened or questioned.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra V State of Uttar Pardesh:

            S.C observed that the writ petition before them was not a inter part y dispute and the controversy in it was whether mining was to be allowed or not. Thus it was a matter that decided the social safety and providing hazardous free environment. It observed that in matter s of grave public importance Res Judicata can not be used as ashield.

Ramdas Nayak V Union of India

            Court observed that, in cases of repitative litigations coming under the grab of PIl, it was high time to put an end to it, invoking Res Judicta.

Applications of Rs Judicata:

                                              1)           Can be invoked in subsequent stage of same proceedings.

                       
                       Y.B.Patil  V  Y.L.Patil:       held once an order made in course of proceedings becomes  final, it would be binding upon the parties at subsequent stage of the same proceedings.

 

             2)Can apply against Co-Defendants.

                        Mahaboob Sahab V Syed Ismail: held if the following four conditions are satisfied Res     Judicata will apply

a)      There must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned.

b)      It must be necessary to decided such conflicts, in order to give relief to the plaintiff.

c)      The questions between the defendants to be finally decided.

d)      Co-defendants to be necessary and proper parties to the suit


3)  Can apply between Co-Plaintiffs

             Ahamed V Syed Meharban:     held if the following four conditions are satisfied Res Judicata will apply

a)      There must be a conflict of interest between the co-plaintiffs.

b)      It must be necessary to decided such conflicts, in order to give relief to the plaintiff.

c)      The questions between the plaintiffs to be finally decided.

Non Application of Res Judicata

1)      Habeas Corpus Petitions

Sunil Dutt V Union of India : Held that habeas corpus, filed under fresh grounds and changed circumstances will not be barred by a previous such petition.

2)      Dismissal of Writ Petition In Limine

Pujaril Bal V Madan Gopal : Held Res Judicata not applicable when dismissed in limine 

( without speaking orders) or on grounds of laches or availability of alternate remedies.

3)      Matter collaterally and incidentally in issue doesn’t operate as Res Judicata – Sayed Mhd V Musa Ummer

4)      Res Judicata not applicable to IT Proceedings or fixing of fair rent proceedings