Res Judicata under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code

Introduction to the concept of Res Judicata

The doctrine of Res Judicata is defined under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The term simply implied that once a suit has been decided and settled by the court of competent jurisdiction then the party possesses no rights to institute a subsequent suit on the same issue. In this way it ensures that no similar cases are taken up by either the equivalent or distinctive courts of India. Section 11 of the code provides that, “No court shall attempt any suit or issue in which the matter directly or substantially in issue is the same as that of the former suit between the same parties or between under whom they or any of them claim litigation under the same title of the former suit already decided before any competent court to attempt such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised and has been heard and finally decided by such court”.

The rule of ‘Res Judicata’ is associated with the conditions of public policy. It proposes some sort of finality and conclusiveness to be attached to the decision of the court so as to ensure the individuals are not subjected to same litigation for more than once. The underlying assumption is that multiplication of litigating the same dispute between the same parties is neither conducive nor convenient for the growth of Judiciary in India. The doctrine is wide enough to be even applicable to writ proceedings as well, as stated by the Court in MSM Sharma Vs Sinha (1960), therefore implying that when once a writ petition has been moved in either the High Court or Supreme Court but has been rejected on merits then a subsequent writ cannot be moved in the same court involving the same cause of action. Apart from writ proceedings, it also concerns itself with the execution proceedings, arbitration proceedings, taxation matters, industrial adjudication, administrative and interim orders etc. The doctrine of Res Judicata has evolved over time to promote the ideals of justice, equity along with the larger public interest. It works as a bar to try over the same issue again and propounds for conclusiveness in order to ensure finality of decisions.

History of Res Judicata

Res Judicata pro Veritateaccipitur was the Latin maxim which is now known as ‘Res Judicata’. Its history dates long back to the time when Res Judicata in Hindu ancient law was known as PurvaNyaya (Former Judgment). In case of Roman laws, it was recognized as “one suit and one decision was enough for any single dispute”. This doctrine as an important legal concept, find its roots in the eminent notions of judicial economy, consistency and finality and had over time evolved from the English Common Law system. From there on it was incorporated into Indian legal system under the code of civil procedure 1908. Its applicability however was not limited to this extent only, slowly and gradually other statutes and legislation have also reflected the concept of Res Judicata within its purview.

This concept is based on three Roman Maxim:

1. Nemodebetbisvexari pro una et eademcausa (No one should be harassed or vexed for the same cause twice)
2. Interest reipublicateut sit finis litium (It is state’s interest to ensure an end to litigation)
3. Res judicata pro veritateocipitur (A judicial decision should and must be accepted as error free and final)

Necessary essentials

Essentials stated below are necessary condition precedent for a matter to be constituted as ‘Res Judicata’ under Section 11 of CPC:

1. There must be two suits; former and subsequent.
2. They should be prosecuted under the same title.
3. Subject matter of the subsequent suit should be related to the former suit either explicitly or implicitly.
4. The case must be finally decided between the parties.
5. The court which presided over the former suit must be of competent jurisdiction to try over the subsequent suit also.

Scope and Applicability in the Indian Legal Context

If we question the scope of Res Judicata, then it would be best to say that it is simply not confined to section 11 of CPC. Apart from being applicable to a code as comprehensive as CPC, it also applies to Administrative law, Constitutional law, Criminal matters and other Acts and legislations as well. In one of the cases known as Sheoprasad Singh V Ramnandan Prasad Singh, Sir Lawrence Jenkins has identified the Res Judicata principle as a rule based on wisdom which is for all the time. Another known precedent concerning the doctrine in the Indian legal context was the case of Daryarao V State of U.P, wherein the petitioner had filed writ petition in Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The suit was dismissed and the petitioner then went on to file another petition before the Supreme Court under the writ jurisdiction of Article 32 of the constitution. The SC while reiterating on the importance of the doctrine in its judgment, held that the rule of Res Judicata would also apply to a petition under Article 32 of the constitution and therefore would operate as a bar to a similar petition before the courts. It also stated that in the absence of no such rule, there would be no end to litigation and therefore no security of any kind to any person.

The doctrine so stated above is based on the notion of Public policy and so it aims to promote larger public interest, its scope over time has significantly changed to constitute the modern day perception and application of ‘Res Judicata’.

Comparative prevalence in England and Civil law countries

Laws on Res Judicata in England and Commonwealth countries, is to somewhat extent not properly systematized. At first it was rooted to the early Germane tradition and therefore it utilizes issue preclusion more than claim preclusion however this issue preclusion then had to be extended to issues that were necessary and needed steps to the decision. This led to the establishment of “cause of action estoppel” as a branch of issue preclusion. Thus English law assembled the minimal core of Res Judicata. More recently, it has developed yet another branch of issue preclusion called issue estoppel to construct the modern day doctrine of Issue preclusion. England now is moving towards a wider terminology and therefore has a fairly expansive doctrine on Res Judicata.

Civil law countries on the other hand relied on Roman tradition and therefore their approaches were far more different than those in England. They depended on Issue preclusion simply to enforce judgment’s representation of truth. This type of preclusion prevents the probability of second decision contradicting the first one and its reach goes all the way to include default judgments as well. This Civil law approach would largely be viewed in terms of direct estoppel and through this the civil law acquires the minimum core Res Judicata which may be equivalent to bar and defence preclusion. Even though their approach on res Judicata doctrine may not be as broad as that of English law however they have exhibited some signs of movement towards broader purview within the doctrine.

For example; French courts are now proceeding towards a broader definition of claim preclusion while Greece also has introduced some of the known concepts of issue preclusion.

Conclusion

“Justice delayed is Justice denied”, the ever so famous saying by William Gladstone, throws light on how essential it is for the Judiciary to work efficiently in line to ensure proper disposal of justice. Over time, Judiciary in India has become infested with various loopholes which have rendered it redundant and ineffective.

If the only institution reserved to protect the interest of the citizen, fails to discharge justice in a time bound manner, would Judiciary then be of any use and meaning to its people? Even a tinge of doubtfulness in any judicial proceeding possess the capacity to cripple the very foundation of faith and trust that people together had invested in this institution therefore to ensure the efficiency and efficacy of judiciary, the doctrine of Res Judicata plays a very significant role. The extent of which is very wide and it includes a lot many things even the PILs. The scope has broadened over time and the Apex court has expanded its purview with its Judgments.

Author: Ishita Nayak (Institute of Law, Nirma University)

Related Posts

• How Commercial Courts Are Reshaping Litigation?
• Good Lawyers Don’t Just Solve Problems. They Prevent Them. Why Don’t We Train Them That Way?
• The Duty to Step Aside: India’s Recusal Jurisprudence Under the Microscope
• How Patent Strategy Shapes Competitive Advantage in Modern Businesses?
• The Fine Print of Property Ownership: Decoding Leasehold and Freehold in India

Reference Material:

1. Mukherjee, A. (2021). Applicability and Exceptions to the Doctrine of Res Judicata (ISSN 2581–5369). International journal of Law and Humanities. https://doi.org/10.1732/26474
2. Kaviarasan, D., & Udayavani, V. (2018). STUDY ON PRINCIPLE RELATING TO RES JUDICATA (ISSN 1314–3395). International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics. https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-5/3/224.pdf
3. Singla, A. (2020). Traceing the origin of the principles of “Res-judicata” and “Res-subjudice”. Explain its importance in view of provisions of CPC and use caselaw. Researchgate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340977869_Traceing_the_origin_of_the_principles_of_’Res-judicata’_and_’Res

Subjudice’_Explain_its_importance_in_view_of_provisions_of_CPC_and_use_caselaw

4. Clermont, K. (2015). ResJudicata as Requisite for Justice. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2614433
5. Ray, S. A. S. R. D. K. (2004, June 21). Principle of Res Judicata. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/principle-of-res-judicata/articleshow/748399.cms
6. Borah, U. (2020, September 10). What is Res Judicata? Law Times Journal. https://lawtimesjournal.in/what-is-res-judicata/
7. Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2007, April 27). Res judicata. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/res-judicata