Difference Between Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice

The legal concepts of Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice are fundamental principles in the field of law that serve to ensure justice, efficiency and finality in the judicial process. These doctrines play critical roles in preventing the misuse of judicial resources, protecting parties from repeated litigation and promoting consistency in judicial decisions. 

This article explores and highlights the key differences between Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice, shedding light on their respective purposes, scopes and implications in the pursuit of a fair and efficient legal system.

Res Judicata

Res Judicata, a phrase of Latin origin, pertains to a legally settled case. The concept of res judicata serves to bar any further litigation on the same matter involving the same parties, once a case has been conclusively resolved and a final judgment has been delivered, leaving no room for any further appeals.

Res Sub Judice

Res Sub judice, a Latin maxim meaning “under judgment,” is a legal principle rooted in public policy. It prohibits a plaintiff from initiating two simultaneous claims on the same subject matter, thereby preventing the possibility of conflicting rulings from different courts. The theory of Res Sub judice serves the purpose of avoiding redundant legal processes and ensuring consistency in judicial decisions.

Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice

The idea of res sub judice is elucidated in Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882, whereas the concept of res judicata is discussed in Section 11 of the same CPC. Section 10 sets forth the provision that cases should be stayed while they are under consideration or adjudication by a court. 

In contrast, Section 11 outlines that the rule applies to a case that has already been conclusively decided. It prohibits the re-trial of a suit or an issue that involves the same subject matter that has already been settled in previous litigation.

Key Difference Between Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice

Meaning and Definition

Res judicata

Res judicata is derived from the Latin phrase “res judicata pro veritate accipitur,” which means a matter adjudged is accepted as true and final. It originated in English common law, which emphasised the idea of judicial uniformity. The doctrine was initially incorporated from common law into the Code of Civil Procedure and later adopted into the Indian legal system. Section 11 of the CPC deals specifically with the provision of res judicata.

Under this doctrine, a court cannot entertain any suit that has already been adjudicated on similar facts and issues in a previous suit. The proceedings must have taken place in a competent court under a similar title. The doctrine, also known as claim preclusion, prevents parties from initiating new legal actions against the same parties over the same facts and grounds. It aims to prevent the abuse of legal processes and harassment by parties who might file similar suits multiple times.

In the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal and Others v. Sm. Deorajin Debi and Another (1960), the Supreme Court emphasised that res judicata ensures the final settlement of a matter. Once a matter has been resolved between two parties in a single proceeding, whether on a question of fact or law and the decision is final (either due to no appeal filed or appeal rejected), neither party can raise the same issue in any subsequent suit or proceeding.

Similarly, in Daryao and Others v. The State Of U. P. and Others (1961), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the principle of res judicata, which demands that litigation must conclude, is a fundamental principle applied by all courts and it is not limited to any specific records.

Furthermore, in Lal Chand (Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors v. Radha Kishan (1976), the Supreme Court asserted that once a final decision has been made earlier, judges consider it as the res judicata in the present suit between the same parties. This means that the matter already adjudicated is considered final and binding in subsequent legal actions involving the same parties.

The doctrine of res judicata is founded on several maxims, which are as follows:

Nemo debet lis vexari pro eadem causa:

This maxim, nemo debet lis vexari pro eadem causa, emphasises that no person should be vexed or tried twice for the same cause of action. It applies to both civil and criminal cases and aims to bring finality to the litigation process. This principle is also reflected in Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution, which ensures that no person shall be prosecuted and punished more than once for the same offence.

Interest republicae ut sit finis litium:

The meaning of this maxim is that there should be an end to litigation because it serves the interests of the nation. Continuously allowing parties to relitigate the same issues can lead to a waste of judicial resources and can disrupt the social order. Res judicata helps in achieving judicial certainty and stability in legal matters.

Res judicata pro veritate occipitur:

This maxim emphasises that a judicial decision must be accepted as it stands. Once a matter has been adjudicated and a final judgment rendered, it should be considered as the truth. The purpose of res judicata is to prevent parties from re-litigating the same issues and to give conclusive effect to the prior decision.

Res sub judice

The term ‘res’ in Latin means matter and ‘sub judice’ means under consideration. Therefore, the doctrine of res sub judice refers to a matter that is still under consideration by the court. Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) states that no court can initiate proceedings between the same parties on the same issues that are directly or subsequently in question in a pending suit before a competent court. 

The objective of the doctrine is to stay the proceedings when multiple cases are filed in the same court involving the same parties and issues. It aims to avoid wasting the court’s time, prevent contradictory decisions and protect parties from unnecessary court proceedings and harassment.

The doctrine of res sub judice is applicable to trials, appeals and revisions. However, it does not bar a court from issuing temporary orders like injunctions or stays.

In the case of Escorts Const. Equipment Ltd v. Action Const. Equipments Ltd (1998), the Delhi High Court stated that to invoke Section 10 of the CPC, certain conditions must be met, including having a matter at issue and the same parties involved in both the previous and subsequent suits. Additionally, the previous suit must have been filed in a court with the jurisdiction to grant the desired relief.

In Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Marketing Federation (1998), the Supreme Court mentioned that the purpose of the doctrine of res sub judice is to avoid contradictory rulings on the same subject matter by preventing courts with jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel matters.

In the case of Arumugha Udayar Rep. by Power v. Lakshmi (2005), the Madras High Court outlined four essential conditions to invoke Section 10 of the CPC, which include the matter at issue in the second lawsuit being significantly and directly related to the first lawsuit, the involvement of the same parties or those acting on their behalf, the relief sought in the second lawsuit being admissible in the court where the initial lawsuit was filed and the previous suit must be pending before a competent court.

Purpose

Res Judicata

• Restricts re-litigation and prevents the same matter from being tried again between the same parties.
• Saves time and resources of the court by avoiding repeated trials on the same issue.
• Provides protection to the defendant from repeated harassment and potential double jeopardy.
• Brings finality to the matter and puts an end to the litigation process.
• Avoids conflicting judgments and promotes consistency in judicial decisions.

Res Sub Judice

• Saves the judiciary’s time by preventing unnecessary suits.
• Allows the plaintiff to address all issues and facts against the same defendant in a single suit.
• Avoids contradictory decisions on the same matter by preventing courts with concurrent jurisdiction from hearing two parallel lawsuits.
• Protects the defendant from facing multiple claims on the same subject matter.
• Prevents confusion that could arise from multiple ongoing suits on the same issue.

Essentials

Res Judicata

• One former and one subsequent suit must be filed.
• The matter in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially related to the matter in the former suit.
• The parties involved in the subsequent suit must be the same or similar to the parties in the former suit.
• The titles of both suits should be the same or similar.
• The suit must be filed in a competent jurisdiction.
• The court must have previously heard and decided the issue that is directly and substantially in question in the subsequent suit.

Res Sub Judice

• There must be two civil suits between the same parties.
• The former suit is pending before the competent court when the subsequent suit is brought.
• The subsequent suit is filed under a similar title to the former suit.
• Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply if the suit is pending in a foreign court.
• Section 10 applies if a subsequent application is filed before the Tahsildar while the suit is pending before the court.
• The date of the presentation of the plaint is considered for the institution of the suit and the appeal is also included in the suit.
• The court must have the inherent power to stay the proceedings.
• A decree passed in violation of Section 10 will be null and void.
• The parties have the right to waive their rights under Section 10.
• The court has the power to pass interim orders.

In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal (1961) and Dr. Guru Prasad Mohanty and Ors. v. Bijoy Kumar Das (1984), supports and emphasises the importance of adhering to the requirements of Section 10 and the objective of preventing concurrent courts from hearing two parallel lawsuits on the same claim, issue and relief simultaneously.

Exceptions 

Res judicata

The doctrine of res judicata prevents parties from reinitiating litigation; however, there are specific circumstances when this doctrine does not apply:

• When the decree and order have been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation of facts or issues.
• When the judgment is not pronounced on the merits of the case.
• When the special leave petition was dismissed without a proclamation or determination of the judgment.
• When the subsequent lawsuits have a different cause of action, the court cannot dismiss it based on res judicata.
• When the court lacked competent jurisdiction in the former suit.
• When there is a question of law involved.
• When an interlocutory order was passed in a former suit.
• If there has been an amendment to the existing law that grants new rights to the party, then the doctrine will not apply.
• When the suit was dismissed by default.
• If the party does not raise a plea for res judicata.

Res sub judice

The doctrine of res sub judice does not apply in certain cases, including:

• When the claims in each suit are unique and distinct from one another.
• When there are both common and unique issues in the cases, the doctrine may not apply.
• When different issues are involved between the same parties.
• It is not necessary to raise all issues from the earlier suit in the later litigation for Section 10 to be applicable.

Important Difference Between Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice

Here’s table summarising the differences between Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice:

Conclusion

The main difference between the  Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice lie in their applicability, conditions and exceptions. Res Judicata is applicable when a case has reached a final decision, while Res Sub Judice is relevant when a case is still pending before a court. 

Res Judicata requires one former and one subsequent suit, parties and titles to be similar, whereas Res Sub Judice necessitates two civil suits involving the same parties and a similar title. Additionally, various exceptions exist for both doctrines, allowing certain circumstances where they may not apply.