- Res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or decided and together it means “a matter adjudged”. Section 11 of CPC embodies the doctrine of Res Judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of a judgment. It enacts that once a matter is finally decided by a competent court, no party can be permitted to reopen it in a Subsequent litigation. It serves to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to protect parties from being vexed twice for the same cause.
Essential Elements
- – Matter in issue must be same: To apply the principle of Res Judicata, the matter in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially same in the former suit.
- – Same Parties: The former suit must have been between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim.
- – Same Title: The parties must be litigating under the same title in both the former and subsequent suits.
- – Competent Jurisdiction: The court that decided the former suit must have had jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which the issue has been raised.
- – Heard and Finally Decided: The matter in issue must have been heard and finally decided by the former court.
DOCTRINES OF RES JUDICATA
- Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa: It means no man should be vexed twice for the same cause.
- Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium: This maxim means 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.
Object
Object of res judicata is to give finality to decision given by court. It is applicable where a suit is pending and matter in controversy is already decided in a formal suit. Res judicata is applicable to suit (all issue) or to any issue of them. By res judicata , trail of subsequent suit is barred.
Extent and Applicability
- – This doctrine is a fundamental concept based on public policy abd interest of the society and hence it has universal application.
– It applies to civil suits, execution proceedings, taxation matters, unit petitions, interim orders, criminal proceedings, etc.
SECTION 11 OF CPC: 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 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 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.
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 as res 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.]
RELEVANT CASE LAWS
Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali AIR 1974 SC 749
Facts: In this case the Co-plaintiffs Ishtiaq Ahmed, Kaniz Fatima, and Meharban Ali filed a suit against the mortgagee of a property in dispute. The suit was decided in the favour of Ishtiaq Ahmed, and he was adjudicated to have the title of property. The other two co-plaintiffs (Kaniz Fatima, and Meharban Ali) had no title. The issue was decided by a Court competent to try the suit. Later, a dispute arose between the co-plaintiffs. Ishtiaq Ahmed as one party and Kaniz Fatima, along with Meharban Ali as the other party regarding the same property. The matter was referred to the arbitrator. The arbitrator said that the decision would operate as res judicata, whereas the High Court said it would not operate as res-judicata. The matter came before the Supreme Court by a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Issue: Whether the former suit regarding the title of property decided by the competent Court would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit between the parties who were co-plaintiffs in the former suit?
Judgement: The SC in this case, ruled the following 4 principles to operate res judicata in any case:
a. There must be a conflict of interest between the parties.
b. It is necessary to decide that conflict in order to give relief and determine the issue in the case.
c. That such a conflict has been conclusively determined.
d. The co-defendant were necessary or proper parties in the former suit.
The Court finally held that no reason is noticeable to adjudicate why res-judicata should not be applied in the subsequent suit if all required conditions are satisfied.
State of U.P. vs Nawab Hussain
Facts: In this case the petitioner was dismissed from the service on the basis of corruption charges by Deputy Inspector General (DIG) and the order was confirmed by the Government. He filed a petition against the dismissal; however, the petition was dismissed. Later, he again filed a petition contending that he did not get a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to defend himself, this petition was also dismissed by the High Court. He again filed a civil suit that his dismissal was done by the DIG who had no power to dismiss him, and his dismissal falls foul of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India, 1950. The State of U.P. traversed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by res judicata as “all the matters in issue in this case had been raised or ought to have been raised in both the writ petition and special appeal”. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the District Judge also upheld the decision of the Trial Court. However, the High Court was of the view that the suit was not barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. Finally, the appeal was tabled before the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the suit is barred by the constructive res judicata under section 11 of the Civil Procedure?
Judgement: The Court observed that the principle of estoppel per res judicata is the rule of evidence. This doctrine is based on two theories:
(i) The finality and conclusiveness of judicial decisions for the final termination of disputes in the general interest of community as a matter of public policy and
(ii) the interest of the individual that he should be protected from multiplication of litigation It therefore serves not only a public but also a private purpose by obstructing the reopening of matters which have once been adjudicated upon.
The Court further observed that Section 11 is not exhaustive regarding an earlier decision operating as res judicata between the same parties. It is unnecessary that the court deciding the matter formerly be competent to decide the subsequent suit or that the former proceeding and the subsequent suit have the same subject matter.
The Court finally held that the decision of the High Court was wrong, and it was therefore not permissible for plaintiff to challenge his dismissal, in the subsequent suit, on grounds which he did not raise in the former suit.
The Court held that this was clearly barred by the constructive res judicata.
C.A. Balakrishnan v. Commissioner Corporation of Madras
Facts: The government allegedly sealed the canteen of the petitioner. He filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction and restoration of possession. He filed three interim applications (IAs) for interim reliefs like removal of lock, restoring possession, appointing a commissioner, etc. All the interim applications were dismissed, but he was allowed to remove movables from the canteen. The petitioner did not prefer an appeal against the orders. He however preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to restore possession of the premises to the petitioner and also for an order awarding exemplary costs and damages computed at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day from the date of sealing of canteen restoration of possession. Even after filing the Writ Petition, the petitioner didn’t choose to withdraw the civil suit. In the meantime, before the Writ Petition came up for hearing before the HC, the civil suit was decreed ex-parte in favor of the petitioner.
Issue: Whether the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court is maintainable considering Order II, Rule 2, CPC?
Judgement: Order II, Rule 2 of CPC says, that the suit shall include the whole claim, the relinquishment of part of clam, is not permissible. Therefore, once suit is filed for certain relief in respect of a cause of action, the person who has filed is precluded from instituting another suit for certain other relief with respect to the same cause of action. If second suit is barred, a writ petition would equally be barred. Public policy underlying Order II, Rule 2, CPC is attracted with equal vigour in this situation also. In view of the above-said decisions of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the present writ petition is hit by Order II, Rule 2, CPC. For the reasons mentioned supra, the above writ petition is dismissed.
PRESENT CASE
Q. 1A/2022. Since the issue of dismissal for mala fide action in the writ petition is different from the issue of dismissal by a subordinate authority (Article 311) in the civil suit, the two issues are not the same. The suit is not barred by res judicata as the issues raised in both proceedings are distinct.
Q. 3A/2018. No, B will not succeed. The suit filed by B is barred under Section 10, CPC, since the matter in issue (ownership and possession of the ancestral property) is already directly and substantially in issue in the suit filed by A. Thus, B will not be able to proceed with his suit until the earlier suit is disposed of.
