Introduction
The doctrine of Res judicata is ancient and historical worldwide. When we talk about it in India, the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, under Section 11, has defined the principle of Res judicata. After that, administrative law accepted it. Similarly, the Indian legal system covered that concept in other statutes and acts. In this article, we discuss the doctrine of Res judicata under the Civil Procedure Code and various factors of that doctrine. Also, we know the aims and motto for including that concept in the Indian legal system.
What is res judicata in CPC?
Res judicata means any matter or dispute that the court has already decided; then, it cannot be brought again in court with the same subject matter. In other words, we can say that a party cannot put his case twice to the court with the same subject matter, which the court has already decided. If a party does so, it is barred by res judicata. Suppose a party does like that; he shall be a bar of res judicata because the court has no power to put a new trial of any suit or subject matter which is previously decided between the same parties of the suit.
What does the principle of res judicata under section 11 of CPC say?
The principle of the doctrine of res judicata is defined under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This doctrine clearly says that the matter ordered in a previous suit by the court cannot be tried in a fresh suit between the same parties. The aim of this doctrine is that no one can be put in litigation twice for the same reason. According to that principle, the judiciary pronounces a decision that must be accepted as accurate and correct at the end of litigation. [1].
This view is taken in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. State of U.P. and another, (AIR 2005 SC 446). The Supreme Court rightly observed that the principle of res judicata is based on the need to give finality to judicial decisions. The principle which prevents the same case from being twice litigated is of general application and is not limited by the specific words of S. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this respect. Res judicata also applies as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a Court, whether the trial court or a higher court, having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way, will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings.[2].
What is the importance of res judicata?
Res judicata play a vital role in making equivalent right among competing interests—the primary aim is to create an accurate, effective judicial system that makes it finally.
Res judicata covers three Roman maxims that are given below;
- The first one is Nemo debet lis caxari pro eadem causa; that means no one can be vexed or harassed more than once for the same cause of action.
- The second one is Interest republicae ut sit finis litium; it means the end of litigation should be the state interest.
- And the third one is Res judicata pro veritate occipitur; it means the court decision should be considered true.
Which pre-conditions apply for res judicata?
The plea of res judicata embodies some requirements that are necessary to be fulfilled as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which is given below;
- The subject matter or issue of the subsequent suit must be involved in the former suit that was decided previously.
- The parties of the former and subsequent suit must be the same.
- The lawsuit must be a verdict between the parties of the suit.
- A competent court must decide the case within its competent jurisdiction.
- The litigation between the parties must be invoked under the same title in the former and subsequent suit.
Here, one thing we should note is that the matter of res judicata should be claimed by the parties to the suit; otherwise, it cannot be raised by the trial court, in that the court cannot raise the issue suo motto. There is no jurisdiction of the court to raise the issue of res judicata and act upon it unless the suit parties raise the issue of res judicata before the trial court.
In the case of the matter in issue:
The right to litigation is indeed a fundamental right of the people; anyone can make his grievance against another party on the fact that he believes, as well as on the basis of law which is applicable to determine that fact. Therefore, we can say that the issue is one kind of expression of a matter of issue which occurs in the right of litigation. That issue may be based only on fact or law, or it may be mixed, based on facts and law that depend on the subject matter of the issue.
If the matter in issue directly invokes a former suit that may be covered as Res judicata in a subsequent suit. The parties to the suit cannot raise the same issue by filing another suit proceeding.
The issue of law can be counted as res judicata if the following terms are fulfilled between the same parties in a former suit;
- If the cause of action invoked in a subsequent suit is the same as the previous proceeding.
- If the earlier decision is pronounced by the court and not altered or modified by the competent authority.
- Suppose parties make two trials within the same jurisdiction of the court. For example, the former suit and subsequent suit within the same jurisdiction for the same subject matter.
- An earlier decision pronounced by the court is not declared invalid or prohibited by law.
Explanation: When the matter is directly and subsequently an issue between the same parties:
If we refer to the provision of section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, there is a specific mention that an issue must have been covered in the subsequent issue in a former suit. However, there is no hard and fast rule which determines that the issue is substantial or collateral in the former suit which was filed by the parties.
In Ragho Prasad Gupta v. Krishna Poddar (AIR 1969 SC 316), the Supreme Court held that the expression of opinion on a question should not be counted in the issue. Thus, it can not operate as res judicata.[3].
Can res judicata operate if the circumstances around the issue change?
The most crucial part of res judicata is that it considers the identity of the subject matter in both physical and juridical sense. In the case of Mavelikkara Ex-Servicemen’s Multipurpose Co-operative Society v. Parvathy Amma Rajamma, (Civil Revision 2917 of 1983), the Kerala High Court rightly observed that the subject matter identity under the res judicata not only in be physical sense but it also is in a juridical sense.[4].
What is the meaning of the same title which is claimed by the same parties?
In Vasudevanand Saraswati vs. Jagat Guru Shankaracharya, the Allahabad High Court rightly observed that the same title means the same capacity. The parties of the suit should be different in the eyes of the law. That’s why if the same parties enter into the litigation with a different role, the doctrine of res judicata does not operate, even of the decision of the former suit. If the parties who claim their rights are based on a different cause of action from the former suit, the subsequent suit will not be barred as res judicata because of the same property; hence, if the cause of action between the same parties in the suit is different even of the same property. then, the doctrine of res judicata does not operate.[5].
In Muneesh Kumar Agnihotri and others vs. Lalli Prasad Gupta, (AIR 1989 All 202), the Allahabad High Court held that res judicata would operate if only the issue was the same in the former and subsequent suit between the same parties under the same title. In that case, the issue is the same, but the title of the parties is different from the former suit. The former suit was claimed by the father for the business only. But the subsequent suit was claimed for the business, which is started with the joint family funds. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to such business as well as the properties which are required through the funds of a joint family business. Here, in that case, the plea for res judicata is not accepted by the court even if the same issue.[6].
Which court is capable of determining the subsequent suit?
When we refer to the provision of section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, there specify some criteria for the capability of the court to try the further suit. As per this provision, the competent court means that the court that decided the former suit is the competent court to try the subsequent suit or the issue which arises in the subsequent suit. In Raj Lakshmi Dasi and Ors vs. Banamali Sen and Ors, (1953 AIR 33), the Supreme Court rightly observed that when a plea of res judicata is based on general principles of the law, it is necessary to establish that the court where the former case was heard and decided has competent jurisdiction. There is no requirement to prove that the court has jurisdiction to hear the subsequent suit.[7].
When does the plea of Res judicata get an exception?
There are some criteria required to fulfil the plea of Res judicata; however, if the following terms are not satisfied, the doctrine of Res judicata does not apply.
The judgment of the former suit is obtained by fraud.
This is a crucial condition: the judgment of the previous suit must be obtained lawfully. If that is obtained in a fraudulent manner, the doctrine of Res judicata does not apply.
When the cause of action is different from a former suit
The doctrine of Res judicata does not apply if the cause of action of the subsequent suit is different from the former suit. There is no bar to trying a fresh suit between the same parties if the cause of action of the suit is different from the previous suit.
If the order passed by the court is Interlocutory
The interlocutory order is an interim order that is not covered in the case’s final order or decree. If any interlocutory order is passed in the former suit, that means it is an interim order but not a final order. As per the provisions of Section 11 of the CPC, it is clearly mentioned that the doctrine of Res judicata will not be applied in any interim or interlocutory order. Because that type of order may be altered in the subsequent proceedings in the same suit, it is not a final order of a suit.
If the law is changed
Sometimes it happens that the law is changed. In that case, if the new law secures new rights of the parties, then that doctrine does not apply.
When the court is not competent to decide the issue
If the former suit was ordered by a court that is not competent to decide such an issue in that case, this doctrine does not apply in the subsequent suit.
If the party waives the decree of res judicata
It is the duty of the opposite party to take a plea to the court for the adjudication of the former suit or issue. If the party does not take such a plea of res judicata before the court, in that case, the matter may be decided against him; thus, if a party waives its right to a plea of res judicata at the first stage, then after can not be raised at the later stage of the proceedings.
Difference between Res Judicata and Estoppel
The doctrine of Res Judicata is defined under section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code,1908. The doctrine of res judicata explains that when a party lays the suit against the same party for the same subject matter or issue that the court previously decided within the jurisdiction, it will bar as per the law; res judicata will operate, which means no one can lay a lawsuit for the same subject matter or issue, against the same party which is previously verdict by the court within the competent jurisdiction.
While the doctrine of Estoppel is defined under section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. this doctrine explains that there is a legal bar for the party to say a certain statement that is not true, whether in real terms it is true or not. In other words, when a person either by his act, omission, or declaration made something to believe to be true and make agreed a person act upon it, in the later stage, he or his representative cannot deny it in the court of law.[8].
The doctrine of Res Judicata works on the legal principle that prevents the court from trying the matter or issue which is already decided by the court in the former suit within a competent jurisdiction.
While the doctrine of Estoppel works on the legal terms that prevent the parties from acting upon a certain thing, as he mentioned previously, it denies that thing at a later stage.
After some similarities, there is a difference between Res judicata and Estoppel, which is given below;
- The concept of res judicata is based on public policy, which is covered in the Civil Procedure Code. For example, the aim of the state is to bring an end to litigation. At the same time, Estoppel is related to the law of evidence, which is covered in the Indian Evidence Act. The concept of this principle says that a party who tries to believe something by his conduct, statement, or act cannot alter it to take advantage of that thing in the court of law.
- The purpose of res judicata is to prevent a party from multiplicity of proceedings within the same thing in the same jurisdiction. In contrast, the purpose of Estoppel is to prevent a party from making contradictory statements in the court of law to take advantage at different times.
- Res Judicata prevents a trial that was previously tried by the court and decided. While Estoppel is counted as a piece of evidence, it is related to the fact that a party cannot return his steps, which are already taken as it is binding for him in the court of law.
- Res judicata affects both parties to the suit and binds them. In contrast, estoppel binds only the party who made a previous statement or engaged in that type of conduct.
- Res judicata is related to the court’s jurisdiction, while Estoppel is related to the evidence produced in the court.
Conclusion
The concept of Res Judicata has a large scope. It is a crucial part of the Indian legal system. The Civil Procedure Code,1908, under Section 11, covers the provision of Res Judicata. Accordingly, no one can try a matter twice, which is already decided in the previous suit. This concept is related to public policy. Res Judicata protects the rights of the defendant parties who may suffer from the plaintiff who tries to recover the damages twice for the same injury.
Reference
(1) Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
(2) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. State of U.P. and another, (AIR 2005 SC 446).
(3) Ragho Prasad Gupta v. Krishna Poddar (AIR 1969 SC 316).
(4) Mavelikkara Ex-Servicemen’s Multipurpose Co-operative Society v. Parvathy Amma Rajamma, (Civil Revision 2917 of 1983).
(5) Vasudevanand Saraswati vs. Jagat Guru Shankaracharya, the Allahabad High Court.
(6) Muneesh Kumar Agnihotri and others vs. Lalli Prasad Gupta, (AIR 1989 All 202).
(7) Raj Lakshmi Dasi and Ors vs. Banamali Sen and Ors., (1953 AIR 33).
(8) Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872.
