Judicial interpretation on “Doctrine of Res judicata”

Judicial interpretation on “Doctrine of Res judicata” written by Pooja Ganesh student of SASTRA Deemed University

Introduction

Breach of every right should be compensated by a remedy. An aggrieved person can file a suit in a competent court and can demand his remedy. But few suits are barred by the doctrines of res sub judice and res judicata under the Civil Procedure Code. Res judicata means a thing already adjudicated. If an issue has already been decided, then a second chance to file a suit dealing with the same issue in a court is not entertained. The English Common Law system established the concept of res judicata and from there it was adopted by the Code of Civil procedure. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure talks about the res judicata. If any of the parties of a case approach the court with the same issue which is already been addressed with judgment, then such a suit can be stuck down by the doctrine of res judicata based on the principles of public policy.
The main role of res judicata is played in the administrative law because it administers the work of the judiciary in disposing of each case.
Res judicata applies only for the cases where a petition is filed more than once in a court by the same parties and with the same issues. It can be the same court or any other court within the country. “Justice is ensured when a case is fairly tried and all litigations about the case are to be concluded”, this was the idea of Justice Campbell, Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The principles of conclusiveness are implied by the doctrine of res judicata. This doctrine preserves the resultant effect of the first judgment pronounced by the court. The multiplicity of the suit are avoided, this helps in reducing the load of the suit pending in the courts. This bars the concept of re-litigation and the finality of “lis” is reached. . In the Indian Legal system, the doctrine of res judicata applies to both civil and criminal law.

Origin of Res judicata

The rule of conclusiveness in Section 11 is derived from these legal maxims:
• “Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa”
This means that no person should be tormented or harassed or punished two times for the same cause of action. If an order is delivered for a particular case and the wrongdoer is punished. Then the same cause of action if brought in another court by the same party will again torment and punish the wrongdoer. The basic idea of res judicata has been rooted in this maxim.
• “Interest republicae ut sit finis litium”
It is a concern of the state that there should be an end of litigation. Re-litigation is prevented by the doctrine of res judicata. But if the court is satisfied that a subsequent suit can be decided based on a legal point, then res judicata won’t apply and the court is open to decide such suit.
• “Res judicata pro veritate occipitur”
A judicial decision should be adjudged as true. The parties to the suit should accept the order of the court as the final decision and they should not come up with another suit with the same issue. The rule of res judicata is not only applied in a separate subsequent proceeding but also it is invoked in the subsequent stages of the same proceeding. Therefore, the parties should accept each stage of the proceeding.

Essentials conditions under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure code

Before applying the doctrine of res judicata, the following conditions have to be satisfied:
• Presence of 2 suits – Former suit which has already been decided and the subsequent suit which is instituted.
• Both suits should have the same parties or the same representatives.
• The issue or the subject matter of the subsequent suit should be the same as the issue dealt with in the former suit. It is sufficient if the substance of the issue is present.
• The parties in both suits must have litigated under the same title.
• The order of the former suit should have been delivered by a court with competent jurisdiction.
• In the former suit, the parties must have the opportunity to be heard and the case must have been finally decided between the parties.

Constructive Res Judicata

The essence of Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is about the constructive res judicata. It is formed as the duplicate of res judicata. This rule is also based on the considerations of public policy. When a party didn’t raise a plea in the former suit even though they had an opportunity to do so, and later if they file such a plea in their subsequent suit, then also the rule of res judicata applies to the subsequent suit, this is known as the concept of constructive res judicata. If X being the legal heir of Z files a suit against Y for entitlement of property and the suit is dismissed. Then in the subsequent suit X cannot claim the same property based on the ground of adverse possession. This plea should have been raised in his former suit, therefore he is barred by the rule of constructive res judicata. Similarly, if a defendant fails to raise all the objections in the former suit will not be entertained to raise those objections in his subsequent suit. It is constructively in the issue already raise in the former suit, therefore it cannot be the ground of attack or defense in the subsequent suit.
The rule tests whether any of those parties had the opportunity to raise an issue in the former suit if there is a chance to do so then such an issue in question is deemed to have been decided. In Tata Industries Ltd. v. Grasim Industries Ltd, the issue raised in this case was whether the jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator could be raised directly in Supreme Court. The question of “locus standi”, which is not raised in the High Court, cannot be raised directly in Supreme Court. The Court applied the doctrine of constructive res judicata and held that it was considered as an abandonment of the issue and cannot survive in the Supreme Court. In another case, the Supreme Court held that the suit is barred by constructive res judicata only when the plaintiff knew that such a plea could have been raised in the earlier suit. Constructive res judicata applies to subsequent stages of the same proceedings.

Writ petitions and Res judicata

The general principle of res judicata applies even to writ petitions filed under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The only exception is the Habeas corpus. If a petition is barred in the former suit, the subsequent petition is also barred. The question is whether constructive res judicata has an application in the writ petition. The Supreme Court held that the constructive res judicata also applies to writs. The successive writ petition filed by the same parties with the same relief is barred by res judicata. Also, decisions made between the parties of the writ petitions will be taken into consideration for res judicata.

Appeals and Res judicata

The appeal process is not restricted by res judicata, this is one of the main criticism given to the principle of res judicata. It is considered as an extension of the same lawsuit in going up and coming down in the hierarchy of courts. Appeals usually challenge a judgment given by a court and a new trial is not initiated. If the right to appeal is exhausted, then it is considered as a separate case and in that situation, res judicata will apply. When an appeal is pending in a court, and final judgment on the same issue is delivered by another competent court, then it operates as res judicata. If a former appeal has been rejected as time-barred, then res judicata can be applied in a subsequent appeal.

Exceptions to res judicata

The exceptions to res judicata are usually known as a collateral attack based on the competence of the former court. Proper reasoning should be given by the court before discarding a case using the doctrine of res judicata. When special leave petitions are dismissed without adjudication, then res judicata will not apply. The principles of res judicata strictly do not apply to public interest litigation. Article 32 allows the Supreme Court to issue writs and the High Court is vested with some power regarding writs under Article 226. Dismissal of a writ petition in limine is one of the exceptions to res judicata. Res judicata cannot be applied in cases where re-litigation is needed. The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to Habeas corpus cases. If one habeas corpus petition is dismissed, then subsequent petition with fresh grounds will not be discarded. The rights under Section 11 cannot be exercised if new laws bring new changes that lead to the filing of a subsequent suit with the same cause of action.
If the former suit has been obtained by fraud, then res judicata will not apply in the subsequent suit. Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 talks about the incompetency of court or fraud in obtaining a judgment. The court held that if a guardian of the minor without bona fide intention has filed the former case in collusion with the defendant, then it amounts to fraud as per Section 44 and res judicata does not apply in the subsequent suit. Mere negligence in the previous suit does not act as an exception to the principle of res judicata. If there is a different cause of action in both the suits, then the court cannot bar the suit based on section 11 of the code.
Immediate relief given to the parties like interlocutory orders will not be barred by res judicata, because those orders can be changed in the subsequent suit. Even in taxation cases, the doctrine of res judicata has no application. The liability to pay tax each year differs and they are independent of each other. Each year’s tax assessment applies only to that year and it has no governance in the following years. If the order given by the court in the former suit does not have jurisdiction, the principle of res judicata will not have an application in the subsequent suit. If a proceeding of a court is initiated illegally and without jurisdiction, then res judicata will not apply. The doctrine of Res judicata is a procedural provision and it cannot be applied if a pure question of law is raised in the case.

Res sub judice – Stay of Suit

“Where there has been an appeal, the matter is no longer res judicata but res sub judice and where an appeal is not finally heard and decided any matters therein cannot possibly be said to be res judicata”
When more than one case is filed in different courts by the same parties with the same issue, then the court has uses the principle of “stay of suit”. Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code provides for a stay of the suit. The competent court has the power to stay the proceeding of such type of case. This doctrine of res sub judice prevents the simultaneous happening of two litigations with the same cause of action by two courts which has concurrent jurisdiction. But the pendency of a suit in a foreign court does not prevent a person to file a suit with the same cause of action in the courts of India.
When the provision of section 10 of the civil procedure code does not apply strictly in a case, then to ensure justice, section 151 of the code empowers the civil court to stay a suit proceedings. The main aim of this doctrine is to avoid contradictory decisions of two different courts, so the stay of the suit shall stop the trial from proceeding further. This doctrine applies only to the trial of suit and not the institution of a suit. Section 10 is just a rule of procedure and can be waived. After the parties waive their right, they cannot challenge the validity of the subsequent proceedings. The doctrine of res sub judice does not prevent the court to pass interlocutory orders, therefore a court may pass interim orders in a stayed suit.

The main difference between res sub judice and res judicata:

• Section 10 deals with res sub judice and section 11 deals with res judicata.
• Res sub judice deals with the matters pending the court or judicial inquiry. But res judicata deals with matters which are already adjudicated upon.
• Res sub judice stays the suit which is filed later with the same issue as the previous suit. While res judicata bars the subsequent suit which has the same matter of issue as the former suit.
• Res sub judice prevents two parallel proceedings of the same dispute but res judicata prevents the second trial of the same dispute.

Conclusion

Once a decision is made by the court, then the parties cannot move back in time. Res judicata is a wide concept. It has applicability to many domains of society. Supreme Court through its various judgments has shown the vital role played by the doctrine of res judicata in our legal system. The re-litigation process is controlled and maintained by res judicata. As per section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court can apply the principle of res judicata in a case when they think that the matter in issue has already been decided in the former case. This helps in bringing finality in legislation and prevents multiple contradictory judgments with the same subject matter. A suit already adjudicated by the court should not be raised again by the parties, they should accept the order delivered. Indian Legal system without res judicata is unimaginable.