Hello friends, in this article what is the doctrine of res judicata under Civil Procedure Code, essential elements of judicial system. Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to arbitral proceedings and settlement decrees has been explained.

If you are a lawyer, law student or preparing for judicial competitive examination, then you must be aware of the doctrine of res judicata. It is important to know about –

doctrine of res judicata

Provisions related to res judicata have been made in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In this article, the doctrine of res judicata has been highlighted and some examples have also been presented.

According to Section 11 of the Code, the court will not try any such case or point of issue nor will it accept a case again on the same point of issue where any point of issue has already been finally decided by the competent court between the same parties.

The doctrine of res judicata has an important place in the field of law and justice. This is also called ‘principle of prior justice’. This is a very ancient principle, it is also mentioned in Mitakshara.

McNaughton and Colebooks have also mentioned this principle and said that one case and one decision are sufficient for a dispute. In fact, this is the principle of fair justice.

Read Also – What is the Schools of Criminology And how many Types are there? – Criminology

What is res judicata?

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides about the subject matter of law, as per this – “No court shall try any suit or cause of action, the subject matter of which is the subject matter, between the same parties or between the parties under whom He or any of them claims to be sued under the same title in such Court, Who is competent to try such subsequent suit or a suit in which such point of cause is subsequently raised, has been directly and substantially present in any previous suit and has been heard and finally decided by such court. yes.”

In simple words, it can be said that – where any subsequent point has already been finally decided by the competent court between the same parties, then neither the suit can be brought again on the same point nor can it be tried.

Objective of res judicata

This principle gives importance to only one decision on one subject and excludes others. Whose main objective is to prevent multiplicity of suits. If this principle was not there then there would have been no end to the suits and the decision would never have been final. A person would file a suit multiple times on the same issue.

Mainly three objectives of this principle can be considered

(a) termination of litigation,

(b) to provide protection from double litigation, and

(c) To give final shape to the decision of the court. (Ghulam Abbas vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 2198)

Case – Satyacharan vs. Devarajan (A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 941)

In this case, it has been said by the Honorable Court that – “The principle of res judicata is based on the need to give final form to judicial decisions, according to which a matter once decided by a court cannot be decided again.”

The principle of res judicata can be understood by an example – A brings a suit against B in his capacity as owner on the basis of contract, which is dismissed. After that, A again brings a suit against B in the capacity of agent on the basis of the same contract, in that case this suit is considered barred by the principle of equity.

Read Also – What is Criminology : Introduction, Definition, Importance

Essential elements of the principle of justice

There are mainly five elements of the principle of Praanyaya or it can be said that for the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata, it is necessary to fulfill five conditions. These five elements or conditions are as follows –

(a) Matter in dispute –

he subject matter directly or substantially involved in the subsequent suit should be the same which was either actually or constructively involved in the earlier suit. In simple words it can be said that For the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata, the subject matter in dispute in the subsequent suit must have been the subject matter in dispute in the earlier suit, directly and in essence.

Case – R. P. Gupta vs. Shrikrishna Poddar (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. (316) –

In this case, it has been said by the Supreme Court that if the subject matter which was litigated at the earlier time is not in dispute at a later time, then the principle of res judicata will not apply there.

Example – A suit for eviction was brought by A against B on the basis of lease which was decreed but the decree could not be executed within the stipulated time. Thereafter, a suit for eviction is instituted by A against B on the ground of title.

The Supreme Court in its decision has not considered it to be prohibited by the principle of equity, apart from this, where the cause of action in a case is completely different, the principle of equity will not apply there.

Case – Sardar Bai vs Mathri Bai (A.I.R. 2005 NO.C. 251 Madhya Pradesh) –

In this case, the question of completeness of title by adverse possession was directly and substantially involved in the earlier suit between the same parties. Again a suit was filed regarding declaration of title. The court considered it prohibited by the principle of judicial system.

Similarly, in the case of Bhup Singh vs. State of Haryana, the previous suit was brought for a perpetual injunction to prevent the government from auctioning the land and dispossessing the plaintiff. The latter suit was brought for a mandatory injunction. In this, the decision of the earlier case was considered to have judicial effect on the subsequent case. (A.I.R. 2009 No. Co. 96 Punjab & Haryana)

Read Also – Description of the Scope and Nature of Criminology

(b) Parties to the suit –

The second condition for the applicability of the principle of res judicata is that the parties in the subsequent suit must be the same parties or the parties under whom they or any of them make a claim as were in the earlier suit. If the parties in the subsequent suit are different from the parties in the earlier suit, then the principle of res judicata will not apply.

Example – A sues against B for rent. Here B presents the argument that the owner of the premises is not A but C. A fails to prove his title in the suit.

Thereafter, A institutes a suit against both B and C for declaration of his title in respect of the premises. This was not considered prohibited by the principle of equity, because the parties in both the suits were different.

(c) Cause of action –

The third condition for the applicability of the principle of partial justice is that the parties to the subsequent and earlier suit should claim under the same right i.e. title. If a person has been a party in the earlier case and the subsequent case in different capacities, then the principle of res judicata will not apply.

उदाहरण – ख के विरुद्ध एक मृतक महन्त के वारिस की हैसियत से क दावा करते हुए एक मठ की सम्पत्ति की प्राप्ति के लिए वाद लाता है। वाद खारिज हो जाता है क्योंकि क द्वारा अपने आपको ख का वारिस साबित नहीं किया जा सका।क अब ख के विरुद्ध मठ की सम्पत्ति के लिए मठ की ओर से मठ के व्यवस्थापक की हैसियत से दूसरा वाद लाता है, इसे प्राङ्न्याय के सिद्धान्त द्वारा वर्जित नहीं माना गया क्योंकि क की दोनों वादों में भिन्न-भिन्न हैसियत रही है।

Example – A, in his capacity as the heir of a deceased Mahant, brings a suit against B for the recovery of the property of a monastery. The suit is dismissed because A could not prove himself to be the heir of B. A now brings a second suit from the monastery’s administrator on behalf of the monastery for the property of the monastery against B, it was not considered taboo by the doctrine of the morning as both promises of a have varied status.

Read Also – What is juvenile delinquency? Introduction, Definition, Causes And Prevention

(d) Competent court –

The fourth condition for the applicability of the principle of res judicata is that the court trying the earlier case must be competent to try the subsequent case.

Example – A suit was brought in the Musif court for eviction of the premises and recovery of outstanding rent. Later, another suit for declaration of title was instituted in another court, which the Musif court did not have the jurisdiction to hear. This was not considered prohibited by the principle of res judicata.

The principle of res judicata will not apply in such cases in which the decision has been given by a court without jurisdiction.

Case – Begraj Singh vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Meerut (A.I.R. 2009 NO.C. 54 Allahabad) –

This case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the latter court. The latter suit was not considered barred on the basis of precedent.

(e) To have a final decision –

The last and important condition for the applicability of the principle of equity is that the subject matter in dispute should be heard and finally decided. If other conditions are fulfilled and this condition is not fulfilled then the principle of equity will not apply.

If a suit is dismissed on the basis of default under Order 9 Rule 8, then the principle of res judicata will not apply to it because it is not a disposal of the case on merits.

Case – Badamilal vs. Harshvardhan (A.I.R. 1994 Rajasthan 9) –

In this case, it has been held by the Honorable Court that it is necessary for the applicability of the principle of equity to decide the previous case by providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

In other words, it can be said that the issue in dispute in the previous case needs to be resolved on its merits.

Case – State of Bihar vs S. R. Saidur Rehman (AIR, 2009 NOC 363 Patna) –

In this case, it has been held by the Court that where the earlier suit was dismissed on the technical ground of not giving notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not on merits, the principle of res judicata is not applicable. will be.

Case – State of Maharashtra vs. M/s. National Construction Company (A.I.R. 1996 M.C. 2367) –

According to this case, the principle of fair justice will apply in a case only when –

(i) The former and the latter are substantially involved in the subject matter, the subject matter is directly and

(ii) such matters in dispute have been finally decided,

(iii) such decision has been made by a competent court, and

(iv) The parties should be given an opportunity of being heard before the decision.

Thus, for the principle of justice to apply, it is necessary to fulfill all the above conditions.

Applicability of the principle of res judicata

Many times the question comes before us whether the principle of res judicata is also applicable to arbitral proceedings and settlement decrees. In this regard, the following provisions are found in the Code and the decisions of the honorable courts –

Applicability to compromise decree –

The principle of res judicata is not exclusively applicable to a compromise decree because there is no adjudication of the rights of the parties in it. (M/s AA Associates vs. Prem Goyal, AIR 2002 Delhi 142)

Similarly, in the case of Upharas Lethasam vs. Acibel Lyngdoll, the court has said that the principle of res judicata does not apply to settlement decrees or orders, because the settlement is merely an agreement made between the parties, the court has not decided anything in it. goes. (A.I.R. 1986 Guwahati 55)

Applicability to arbitral proceedings –

The principle of res judicata applies to decrees and judgments based on an award provided that –

(a) providing an opportunity of being heard to both the parties to the proceedings,

(b) on merits,

(c) has been finally decided.

Applicability to execution proceedings –

According to the Seventh Explanation to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the principle of res judicata applies to execution proceedings.

Case-B. Ethiraj vs A. Sridevi (A.I.R. 2014 Karnataka 58)

According to this case, the principle of prima facie will apply in such cases, where –

(i) the defendant has accepted the judgment of the trial court, and

(ii) No appeal has been preferred by him against such decision.

Applicability to transfer applications:

The principle of res judicata does not apply to transfer applications, because it does not adjudicate the rights of the parties.

Difference between res judicata and estoppel

The following differences are found between res judicata and estoppel –

(1) Judgment is the result of the decision or decision of the court, whereas estoppel is the result of the actions of the parties.

(2) res judicata prevents a person from instituting a suit again for the same subject matter, whereas Vibandha prevents a person from saying one thing at one time and the opposite thing at another time.

(3) The main objective of judicial process is to prevent multiplicity of suits and to finalize the decision of the court, whereas the main objective of estoppel is to prevent a person from carrying out adverse conduct.

(4) Judgment is binding on both the parties whereas estoppel applies only to the party making the statement.

(5) A priori excludes the jurisdiction of the subsequent court, while estoppel prevents the first party from saying the contrary.

(6) The principle of equity is based on public policy and is in the interest of the state, whereas the principle of estoppel protects the interests of the aggrieved party.

(7) The principle of res judicata inspires to believe in the truthfulness of the court’s decisions, whereas the principle of estoppel prevents any party from saying the subsequent truth.

Important Articles –

What are the essential elements of crime? | Criminal Law

Who is a Hindu According to Hindu law & to which persons does this method apply?

What is Fact : Definition and Type of Fact | Section 3 evidence act

What is Women Crime : Definition, Causes And Preventive Measures

Reference – Book Civil Procedure Code Fourth Edition (Dr. Radha Raman Gupta)

Disclaimer :- This notes is intended to provide information only. If you are seeking advice on any matters relating to information on this website, you should – where appropriate – contact us directly with your specific query. However, we may have made mistakes and we will not be responsible for any loss or damage of any kind arising because of the usage of this information.