The Doctrine of Res Judicata

This article was originally written as an academic paper and is republished here as a knowledge-sharing resource. It has been lightly formatted; statutory references reflect the law as it stood at the time of writing.

“DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA”

Introduction

1859 marked the beginning of civil procedural law in India before it there was no uniformity in the law of civil procedure applicable to the whole of the country. Sir Charles Wood, the then President of the Board for the affairs of India instructed the Second Law Commission to address themselves for preparing a Code of simple and uniform procedure applicable to all the courts of the country. The Commission prepared 4 draft for civil courts of Bengal, the presidencies of Madras, Bombay and the North- Western Provinces.

Soon it was released that Code of 1859 lacked in many respects, Mr. Harrington later introduced a number of new provisions based on orders and rules made under the Judicature Acts in England and also borrowed some provisions of the New York Civil Code. Later Sir Arthur Hobhouse, the then Law Member, made substantial contribution to the draft bill, with certain modification, the bill was enacted as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1877.

Then after several amendments, it was discovered that in respect of some matter the provisions of the Code were too rigid to sufficiently meet the varying needs of the different area of the country. Moreover, there was some conflict of judicial opinion on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Code. Thus the revision work was undertaken by a Select Committee to prepare a draft bill. The draft bill was examined by a Special Committee headed by Sir Earle Richards and was introduced in legislature which later came to known as THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (5 of 1908).

This assignment deals with the doctrine of res judicata which is embodied in section 11 of the Act. Here we have covered the scope, sources and exceptions related to res judicata. Case laws, book & internet has been referred to carve out the best explanation of this doctrine.

Doctrine Of Res Judicata

Section 11 of CPC embodied the doctrine of Res Judicata. Res Judicata can be stated as ‘the rule of conclusiveness of a judgment, as to the points decided either of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, in evert subsequent suit between the same parties’. It means that if an issue had been made the subject matter of the previous suit and had been raised, tried and decided by a competent court having jurisdiction to try the suit, the same issue cannot thereafter be raised, tried or decided by any court between the same parties in a subsequent suit. In Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi it was said, in the absence of such a rule there will be no end to litigation and the parties would be put to constant trouble, harassment and expenses.

Though section 11 speaks about civil suits only, the general principles underlying the doctrine of Res Judicata applies even to administrative adjudication. Thus, an award pronounced by the Industrial Tribunal operates as Res Judicata between the same parties and the payment of wages authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the said question again, or if in an earlier case, the Labour Court had decided that A was not a “workman” within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it operates as Res Judicata in subsequent proceedings.

In Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Jagannath Pandurang, the Supreme Court observed:-

“The doctrine of Res Judicata is a wholesome one which is applicable merely to matters governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure but to all litigations. It proceeds on the principle that there should be no unnecessary litigation and whatever claims and defences are open to parties should all be put forward at the same time provided no confusion is likely to arise by so putting forwar all such claims”.

Res judicata is also known as ‘claim preclusion’, it is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and refers to either of two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "preclusion".

In the case of Res Judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use Res Judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter. The legal concept of Res Judicata arose as a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion. This doctrine has been accepted in all civilized legal systems. Under the Roman law, a defendant could successfully contents a suit filed by a plaintiff on the plea of “ex capito res judicata”, it was said: “one suit and one decision is enough for any single dispute”.

Definition by Spencer Bower - Res Judicata means “a final judicial decision pronounced by a judicial tribunal having competent jurisdiction over the cause or matter in litigation, and over the parties thereto”.

SCOPE

Res judicata includes two related concepts: Claim Preclusion and Issue Preclusion (also called collateral estoppel or issue estoppel), though sometimes res judicata is used more narrowly to mean only claim preclusion. Claim preclusion bars a suit from being brought again on an event which was the subject of a previous legal cause of action that has already been finally decided between the parties or those in privity with a party. Issue Preclusion bars the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier case.

A defendant in a lawsuit may use res judicata as defense. The general rule is that a plaintiff who prosecuted an action against a defendant and obtained a valid final judgment is not able to initiate another action versus the same defendant where:

The claim is based on the same transaction that was at issue in the first action;

The plaintiff seeks a different remedy, or further remedy, than was obtained in the first action;

The claim is of such nature as could have been joined in the first action.

Source Of Res Judicata

The doctrine of res judicata is based on 3 maxims

Nemo debet lis vexari pro una et eadem causa (No man should be vexed twice for the same cause);

Interest republicae ut sit finis litium (It is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to a litigation); and

Res Judicata pro veritate occipitur (A judicial decision must be accepted as correct).

The doctrine of Res Judicata is the combined result of public policy reflected in maxim no. 2 & 3 above and private justice expressed in maxim no. 1; and they apply to all judicial proceedings whether civil or criminal.

Res Judicata And Rule Of Law

In the historic case of Daryao v. State of U.P. of Supreme Court where it has placed the doctrine of res judicata on a still broader foundation. In this case petition filled u/a. 226 in Allahabad High Court was dismissed. Thereafter, they filed substantive petitions in Supreme Court u/a. 32 for the same relief on the same grounds. The respondent raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of petition under res judicata. The Supreme Court upheld the contention and dismissed the petition, speaking from the Constitutional Bench, Gajendragadkar J. (as he then was) observed:

“The binding character of judgments pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction is itself an essential part of rule of law, and the rule of law obviously is the basis of the administration of justice on which the Constitution lays so much emphasis.”

Exceptions To Res Judicata

Res judicata does not restrict the appeals process, which is considered a linear extension of the same lawsuit as the suit travels up (and back down) the appellate court ladder. Appeals are considered the appropriate manner by which to challenge a judgment rather than trying to start a new trial. Once the appeals process is exhausted or waived, res judicata will apply even to a judgment that is contrary to law. In states that permit a judgment to be renewed, a lawsuit to renew the judgment would not be barred by res judicata, however in states that do not permit renewal by action (as opposed to renewal by scire facias or by motion), such an action would be rejected by the courts as vexatious.

There are limited exceptions to res judicata that allow a party to attack the validity of the original judgment, even outside of appeals. These exceptions are usually called collateral attacks and are typically based on procedural or jurisdictional issues, based not on the wisdom of the earlier court's decision but its authority or on the competence of the earlier court to issue that decision. A collateral attack is more likely to be available (and to succeed) in judicial systems with multiple jurisdictions or when a domestic court is asked to enforce or recognize the judgment of a foreign court.

Conclusion

I would like to conclude the assignment by stating what was stated in the case of Daryao v. State of U.P. – the doctrine of res judicata should be interpreted and applied liberally. Since the rule is founded on high public policy and upon the need of giving finality to judicial decisions, a strict and technical construction should not be adopted. In deciding whether the doctrine would apply, its substance and not the form should be considered.