Você está na página 1de 14

 Fair Use Policy

 Notifications

 Sign in


0115 966 7966Today's Opening Times 10:00 - 20:00 (GMT)

 LawTeacher

 Writing Services

 Guarantees

 Prices

 Essays

 Free Resources

 About Us


1. LawTeacher
2. Free Law Essays
3. Constitutional Law

This essay has been submitted by a law student. This is not an example of the work written
by our professional essay writers.

Res Judicata And Code Of Civil

Laws of every land are based on principles. These principles govern the entire realm of
jurisprudence in a country. These principles guide legislation, give legitimacy to judicial
decisions and protect the citizens of a nation. The judiciary incorporates these principles in
deciding cases and ensures conformity by the legislature and executive to such principles.
Res judicata is one such principle, whose origin cannot be sufficiently traced. It is an all
pervading concept present in all jurisdictions of the world. Res judicata is based on public
policy and has universal application. India, has adopted the principle of res judicata in S.11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.").
Modern day society is filled with disputes and litigations. The courts are flooded with
frivolous, slow and cumbersome cases. The embodiment of a principle like res judicata, is but
one of necessity in our country. In order to bring finality to litigation and prevent a person
from being dragged to court again and again, res judicata is essential in any society.
This paper essentially focuses on S.11 of the C.P.C. The scope of this project covers an
overview of the doctrine of res judicata in general providing a background to this paper. This
paper seeks to analyze theory of the doctrine and its application in the form of case laws.
Chapter One deals with res judicata in general, seeking to provide the reader with a
background of the doctrine in general. Chapter Two deals with the essentials for application
of res judicata.


“The principle of res judicata while founded on ancient precedent, is dictated by a wisdom
which is for all time" [1]
Sir Lawrence Jenkins
Res judicata is a judicial creation with roots in the Latin phrase “Res judicata pro veritate
accipitur," “a matter adjudged is taken for truth". [2] Res judicata is, in both civil law and
common law systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer
subject to appeal. The term is also used to refer to the doctrine meant to bar re-litigation of
such cases between the same parties, which is different between the two legal systems. Once
a final judgment has been handed down in a lawsuit, subsequent judges who are confronted
with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one will apply the res
judicata doctrine to preserve the effect of the first judgment. [3] The principle of res judicata
is not the creature of any statute or the handiwork of any code of law. It is the gift of public
policy. [4]
1.1 History Of The Doctrine
The doctrine of res judicata, in its essence, has an ancient history, although it is difficult to
say definitively whether or not the doctrine as it stands now was formulated before
1776. [5] Understood in the distant past by both Hindu lawyers and Muslim jurists, it was
known to ancient Hindu Law as “Purva Nyaya" or “former judgement" [6] . Under Roman
Law, it was recognised by the doctrine of exception rei judicatae which also meant “previous
judgment". Under English law, the principle is embodied in the maxim interest reipublicae ut
sit finis litium, which means the interest of the State lies in that there should be a limitation to
law suits. Now, all the countries of the Commonwealth and those of the European Continent
accept that once a matter has been brought to trial once, it should not be tried again except by
way of appeal. [7]
In order for the bar of res judicata to be applicable, it must be shown that the cause of action
in both the suits is the same as well as that the plaintiff had an opportunity to get the relief
that is now being claimed in the subsequent suit, in the former proceeding itself. [8] Res
judicata bars the opening of final, un-appealed judgments on the merits, even where the
judgment may have been wrong or based on a legal principal subsequently overruled. [9]

1.2 Rationale Behind The Doctrine

The essence of the doctrine of res judicata is the judicially formulated proposition that a
matter which has been adjudicated in a prior action cannot be litigated a second time. The
policies which res judicata is designed to serve include the public interest in decreasing
litigation, protection of the individual from the harassment of having to litigate the same
cause of action or issue against the same adversary or his privy more than once, and
facilitation of reliance on judgments. [10]
Essentially, the doctrine of res judicata in general is based on the three following
maxims [11] :
nemo debet lis vexari pro una et eadem casua meaning that no man should be vexed twice for
the same cause,
interest republicae ut sit finis litium or that it is in the interest of the State that there should be
an end to litigation, and
res judicata pro veritate occipitur meaning that a judicial decision must be accepted as
The principle itself is founded upon the principles of justice equity and good conscience, and
applies to various civil suits, criminal proceedings, writs, execution proceedings etc. [12] The
underlying purpose for this judicially created doctrine was to instill finality into litigation and
to provide for sound economic use of judicial resources. [13]

1.3 Explanations I – VIII To Section 11, Code Of

Civil Procedure, 1908
Explanation I to S.11 states that res judicata depends upon the decision unlike S. 10, wherein
res sub judice hinges upon the institution of a suit.
Explanation II to S. 11 lays down that the finality of such a decision does not depend upon
the existence of a right to appeal. The decision is taken as final regardless of whether the right
to appeal exists.
Explanation III deals with matters that are actually in issue, vis-à-vis constructively in issue
(as in Explanation IV), inasmuch as there is a dispute, where one party alleges something and
the other party either denies it or admits it.
Explanation IV embodies the doctrine of constructive res judicata.
Explanation V declares that if multiple reliefs are sought in the plaint, those which are not
granted expressly by the Court are deemed to have been refused. So, if the Court does not
make reference to some or any reliefs which are claimed, the law deems them to have been
refused by the Court.
Explanation VI provides that if one or more persons file a suit on behalf of many others, who
also have a right to file such a suit, then the decision in such a suit will be binding upon those
who file the suit, as well as all those people on whose behalf such a suit is filed/who are
represented by the persons who actually file the suit.
Explanation VII, as explained earlier, indicates that the doctrine of res judicata as provided
for by S. 11 applies to execution proceedings as well. However, it is important to note that
different petitions may be filed asking for different reliefs. E.g. While a civil arrest may be
sought only once, attachment of property, immovable or movable, may be sought numerous
times, since the defendant may acquire new property. Hence, res judicata will not apply, as in
each case the property is different.
Explanation VIII declares that res judicata will apply to a subsequent suit even where the
Court which decided the former suit is not competent to try the subsequent one, provided that
it was competent to try the former suit, wherein the decision was given.

1.4 Applicability Of Res Judicata

Res judicata is a principle of universal application. It applies to civil suits, criminal
proceedings, writ petitions, execution suits etc. This doctrine is however, neither applicable to
summary dismissal nor to compromise and consent decrees. [14] The doctrine of res judicata
is not confined to the limits prescribed in Section 11, Civil Procedure Code. The underlying
principle of that doctrine is that there should be finality in litigation and that a person should
not be vexed twice over in respect of the same matter. [15] The essential condition for the
applicability is that the subsequent suit or proceeding is founded on the same cause of action
on which the former suit was founded. [16] It is a debatable point whether the doctrine of res
judicata should be interpreted liberally or strictly. However, keeping in view its basis and
objective, which is based on public policy, it can be reasonably asserted that the doctrine of
res judicata should be interpreted liberally. [17]


Res judicata has universal application. In jurisdictions world over the essentials of res
judicata are that: once a court with competent personal and subject matter jurisdiction over
the parties renders a final judgment, that judgment should conclude the matter between the
parties. These principles provide the foundation for the doctrine of res judicata. As a general
rule, in order for the doctrine of res judicata to apply to future litigation, four elements must
be present. First, the court must have competent jurisdiction over both the subject matter in
dispute and the parties involved in the litigation. Second, the judgment must have been “on
the merits." If the plaintiff received judgment in her favour, there is no question that the
judgment was on the merits. If the defendant received judgment in her favour, then the
judgment “may or may not be upon the merits." As a general rule, when a plaintiff's claim is
dismissed based on procedure, the judgment is not on the merits. However, if a court's ruling
in favour of a defendant was not based on procedural grounds, then the judgment will
generally be on the merits. Third, the second case must be based on the same cause of action
as the first action. Finally, the parties in the second action must have been involved in the
initial litigation. Moreover, when the doctrine of res judicata applies to a second suit
involving the same parties and the same cause of action, the first judgment is conclusive not
only on the matters that were “actually litigated, but on all matters which could have been
litigated." Res judicata bars the opening of final, unappealed judgments on the merits, even
where the judgment may have been wrong or based on a legal principal subsequently
overruled. The underlying purpose for this judicially created doctrine was to instill finality
into litigation and to provide for sound economic use of judicial resources. [18]
Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the conditions for res judicata to apply are [19] :
The matter which is 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 or constructively
in the former suit. This applies to execution proceedings as well.
It is necessary that the parties to the subsequent suit be the same parties as were in the former
suit, or are parties who are claiming under the parties to the former suit.
The parties should have been litigating under the same title, i.e. in the same capacity as the
former suit.
In order for the bar of res judicata to apply to the subsequent suit, or the issues therein, the
same (matters directly and substantially in issue) should have been heard and decided by a
Court in the former suit. It is important to note that the Court which decided the former suit
should have been competent to decide such former suit, and had done so on merits.
Earlier, it was required that the Court which decided the former suit must be competent to
decide the subsequent suit as well. However, now, with the insertion of Explanation VIII into
the section, such a requirement has been done away with.

2.1 Matter Directly And Substantially In Issue

The words in S.11 use the phrase “matter directly and substantially in issue". Thus, for res
judicata to operate the former suit and the subsequent suit should have matter which was
“directly and substantially in issue". [20]
The test to decide whether a matter was directly and substantially in issue in the earlier
proceedings is to see if it was necessary for that issue to be decided in order for an
adjudication upon the principal issue. However, every single issue framed is not a matter
which is directly and substantially in issue. Thus, is becomes imperative to examine the plaint
and the written statement to arrive at a conclusion as to which issues were directly and
substantially in issue and which ones were merely incidentally or collaterally in
issue. [21] Another manner in which such may be tested is by checking if decision on such an
issue would materially affect the decision of the suit. [22]
Where there are findings on several issues or where the court rests its decision on more than
one point, the findings on all the issues or points will be res judicata. [23] However, no
objective test can be laid down to definitively determine which matters are directly and
substantially in issue in every case and it depends on the facts and circumstances of each

2.2 Former Suit

The most important condition that needs to be satisfied is that the matter in issue in the
subsequent suit was in issue, directly and substantially, in a former suit. The general and
ordinary meaning of “suit" is a proceeding which is commenced by presentation of a
plaint. [24] Ordinarily, and in more specific terms, a “suit" is a civil proceeding that is
instituted by the presentation of a plaint. [25] The expression “former suit" denotes a suit that
has been decided earlier in time than the suit in question, i.e. the subsequent suit, regardless
of whether such a suit which was decided earlier was instituted subsequently to the suit in
question or not. If two suits are instituted one after the other, and both relate to the same
question in controversy, the bar of res judicata will apply even in cases where the
subsequently instituted suit is decided first. [26]

2.3 Suit Between Same Parties

A ‘party’ is a person whose name appears on the record at the time of the decision. A party
may be the plaintiff or defendant. The condition recognizes the general principle of law that
judgments and decrees bind the parties and privies. [27] Once the matter is heard and decided
in one suit, the same cannot be agitated again by the same parties, their legal representatives
or successors. Res judicata binds in a subsequent suit, the same parties to the former suit, the
legal representatives of such parties or anyone claiming under such parties. Further, even if a
subsequent suit is brought about in a different form or under a different guise, but seeking to
agitate the same matter as was decided in the former suit, it will be barred by res judicata.
E.g. A sues B for breach of contract. A’s suit is dismissed. A cannot file a fresh suit against B
for claiming damages.
Res judicata also operates between co-plaintiffs and co-defendants. In case of co-plaintiffs, it
must be necessary that there is a conflict between the plaintiffs which must be resolved in
order to give relief to the defendant, and such a matter is decided by the Court and the parties
were necessary or proper parties in the former suit. If it is so decided, the decision will
operate as res judicata between the co plaintiffs in a subsequent suit. [28]

Iftikhar Ahmed V. Syed Meherban Ali [29]

There was a dispute as to title to some land. The appellant sought to challenge the decision of
the High Court, which was to the effect that the respondents also had some title to the land in
question. Initially, the dispute between the parties was referred to an arbitrator by the Civil
Judge. The holding of the arbitrator was that that the respondents had no title and sole title
belonged to the appellant. The decision of the arbitrator was based upon a judgment of the
High Court in an earlier judgement, wherein both the present appellant and respondents were
co-plaintiffs in a suit against another person, again in respect of title to the land. Such a
decision of the High Court was considered by the arbitrator to operate as res judicata, and
hence held in favour of the appellants.
The respondents then filed objections against the decision of the arbitrator with the Civil
Judge, Meerut, and the Civil Judge said that the decision of the High Court did not operate as
res judicata and since the decision of the arbitrator, dependent as it was on the decision of the
High Court as res judicata, was manifestly wrong and vitiated by error of law. An order for
fresh arbitration was passed.
The appellants then filed objections before the Civil Judge who did not find anything
manifestly wrong on the face of the record and confirmed the decision of the arbitrator. The
appellants preferred an appeal to the District Court, which allowed it, opining that the
decision of the High Court did constitute res judicata and hence ordered a fresh arbitration.
The respondents then filed a revision petition in the High Court, and the High Court
confirmed the decision of the Civil Judge, reversing the decision of the District Court.
The matter then came up before the Supreme Court a Special Leave Petition. The Supreme
Court considered the matter, and considered the question of whether the respondents, who
had had failed previously to establish title to the properties, could agitate the matter again. In
doing so, the Court also explained the concept of res judicata between defendants and
reiterated the established rule that in order that such a principle may be invoked, the
following conditions must be met:
1) there was a conflict of interest between co-defendants;
(2) that it was necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the relief which the plaintiff
claimed in the suit;
(3) and that the court actually decided the question.
The Court then went on to say that if all these conditions were satisfied mutatis mutandis,
there was no reason why the previous decision should not operate as res judicata between co-
plaintiffs as well. On this reasoning, the Court agreed with the holding of the earlier arbitrator
and contention of the appellants that the earlier decision of the High Court did operate as res
judicata, since all the three conditions had been met mutatis mutandis between the co-
plaintiffs in the earlier case, and accordingly allowed the appeal.
It is also important to mention that the parties in the subsequent suit, though they may be the
same, must additionally be litigating in the same capacity as they were in the former suit.

2.4 Matter To Be Decided By A Competent Court

It is essentially for res judicata to operate against the subsequent, that the former suit should
have been decided by a court “competent to try" the subsequent suit. The expression
“competent to try" means “competent to try the subsequent suit if brought at the time the first
suit was brought". [30] Before Explanation VIII was added to S. 11, the position was that the
Court which decided the former suit must have been competent to decide the subsequent suit
as well, and if it was not, then res judicata would not apply. However, with the insertion of
Explanation VIII, even if the Court which decided the former suit is not competent to decide
the subsequent suit, res judicata will still be applicable provided that the former suit was
decided by a competent Court.
The current position of law is that even if the Court that decided the former suit is not
competent to decide the subsequent one, and yet there are some common issues which arise
in the subsequent suit, which the Court (being competent to do so), decided in the former suit,
the doctrine of res judicata will operate against such issues, and the Court deciding the
subsequent suit will not decide upon these issues.
This may arise in the case of pecuniary jurisdiction, the Court which decided the first suit
cannot decide the second one, but the second suit does have certain issues which were
decided in the former suit (and competently so). In such a case, the second court shall not
decide those issues that were decided by the first court in the former suit. In such a case, res
judicata will apply not to the subsequent suit, but to those issues therein which were decided
in the former suit.

2.5 The Matter Should Be Heard And Finally

For res judicata to be applied, it is necessary that that the matter should have been heard and
finally decided in the former suit, and whether such decision be right or wrong is of
consequence. [31] If an opinion is expressed on issues not material to the decision, then res
judicata will not apply. [32] The matters which are directly and substantially in issue in the
subsequent suit must have been heard by the Court in the former suit and a final decision on
the same must have been delivered. In such cases, res judicata will apply to the subsequent
suit. Such a provision also applies to former suits that were disposed of ex parte, provided
that notifications were suitably issued to the party in question. But if a suit is dismissed on a
technical ground, such a non-joinder of necessary party, it would not operate as res
judicata. [33]

2.6 Res Judicata V. Res Sub Judice

Often people confuse the concepts of res sub judice and res judicata. Res sub judice is
discussed in S. 10 and applies to a the date of institution of suit. It is matter pending judicial
enquiry. S. 11 of the CPC and is a matter adjudicated upon and applies to the date of
Res sub judice stays the latter suit instituted in court which has the same matter directly and
substantially in issue in the previous suit. Res judicata bars the trial of a suit in which the
matter directly and substantially in issue has already been adjudicated upon in a previous
suit. [34]

2.7 Res Judicata And Writ Petitions

It was debatable whether the term ‘suit’ would include writs and whether the principle of res
judicata would apply to writ petitions.

Daryao V. State Of U.P [35]

Six writ petitions were presented before the Supreme Court entertaining this question. One of
the writ petitions was examined in detail by the court.
Facts - The relevant facts are that the petitioners were tenants in the lands of which the
respondents were proprietors. The petitioners had to leave the lands for some period owing to
communal disturbances. When the petitioners returned, they found that the respondents were
in unlawful possession of the land. The petitioners then filed ejectment suits under S. 180 of
the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, and obtained a decree in their favour, which was confirmed in
appeal, and thereby obtained possession of the said lands through Court.
The respondents preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue under S. 267 of the
Act of 1939, wherein the Board allowed the appeal and held that the respondents were
entitled to the possession of the lands in question.
High Court: The petitioners filed a writ petition under A. 226 before the High Court.
However, before the petition was filed, the Allahabad High Court had interpreted a particular
section of the U.P. Land Reforms Act, and such an interpretation was against the interests of
the petitioners. Hence, in consequence of such interpretation, the petitioners could not press
their petition, and it was consequently was dismissed. The same section of the said Act was
later amended, in consequence of which the petitioners approached the Supreme Court via
writ petition under A. 32.
The question that arose for consideration was that since the grounds were same as those
raised before the Allahabad High Court, was the writ petition was hit by res judicata? The
petitioners placed reliance on the supremacy of A. 32 and it being above all other rights. They
emphasized that a fundamental right cannot be whittled down by a technical rule of the
C.P.C. as the Constitution is supreme.
Suprme Court: The Supreme Court was not impressed with the arguments of the petitioners.
The court held that the rule of res judicata as embodied in S. 11 of the Code did have some
technical aspects, but was by and large based on high public policy that there should be a
finality to litigation, and was also based upon the notion that no person should be vexed twice
for the same cause. Due to the doctrine being based on these considerations it couldn’t be
treated as irrelevant or inadmissible even where writ petitions dealing with fundamental
rights were concerned.
The other contention of the petitioners was that High Court and Supreme Court cannot be
said to be courts of competent jurisdiction as they are different. This contention was also
negated by the court and it held that the jurisdictions of the High Court under A. 226 and the
Supreme Court under A. 32 were substantially the same, and even on that count, the
application of res judicata couldn’t be barred. Based on these reasons, the Supreme Court
dismissed the writ petitions as being barred by res judicata arising from the pervious decision
of the High Court and laid down the rule that –
“We hold that if a writ petition filed by a party under Art. 226 is considered on the merits as a
contested matter, and is dismissed the decision thus pronounced would continue to bind the
parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed by appeal or other appropriate proceedings
permissible under the Constitution. It would not be open to a party to ignore the said
judgment and move this Court under Art. 32 by an original petition made on the same facts
and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs. If the petition filed in the High Court
under Art. 226 is dismissed not on the merits but because of the laches of the party applying
for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, then
the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under
Art. 32 except in cases where and if the facts thus found by the High Court may themselves
be relevant even under Art. 32."
However, this view of the Supreme Court has been criticized by some jurists. They have
argued that the judiciary has reduced the fundamental fight in Article 32 as one subject to the
principle of res judicata and even laches, forgetting that there is no great fundamental
principle than the right guaranteed in moving the court under Article 32. Article 32 is silent
as to res judicata and limitation but judicial legislation has introduced these needless aspects
into writ jurisprudence. [36]
It is submitted that the researcher agrees with the view of the Supreme Court. There has to be
finality to litigation. Keeping in view the slow process of judicial remedy and frivolous
litigation in our society, it is rather imperative that the principle of res judicata be given as
liberal an interpretation and its scope should not be curtailed.

Need help with your work?

Find out more about our essay writing service:
Dissertation Writing Service

Our Dissertation Writing service can help with everything from full dissertations to individual

Marking Service

Our Marking Service will help you pick out the areas of your work that need improvement.

All Writing Services

Fully referenced, delivered on time. Get the extra support you require now.

FREEOSCOLA ReferencingFREECase SummariesFREEAct SummariesFREELecture

NotesFREEProblem Question Examples

Request Removal
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on
the Law Teacher website then please click on the link below to request removal:
More from Law Teacher
Law EssaysMore Constitutional Law EssaysExamples of Our Work




1. LawTeacher
2. Free Law Essays
3. Constitutional Law

 0115 966 7966

 enquiries@lawteacher.net

 Contact Us

 About Us

 Become a Researcher

 Join the Conversation


 Services
o Law Essay Writing Service
o Law Dissertation Writing Service
o Law Assignment Writing Service
o All Law Services
 Useful Links
o OSCOLA Referencing Tool
o LLM Resources
o Law Help
 Part of All Answers Ltd

Copyright © 2003 - 2017 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company
registered in England and Wales. Company Registration No: 4964706. VAT Registration No:
842417633. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Registered office: Venture House,
Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ.

 Fair Use Policy

 Terms & Conditions

 Privacy Policy

 Cookies

 Complaints

Share to FacebookShare to LinkedInShare to TwitterShare to WhatsAppShare to Google+More AddThis

Share optionsShare to PDFmyURLShare to Email