Res Judicata

Res Judicata Meaning

“Res” means “subject matter,” and 

“Judicata” means “adjudged” or “decided.” 

So together they mean “Res” + “Judicata” = “a matter adjudged.” 

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), embodies the res judicata doctrine, also known as the rule of conclusiveness of a judgment.

It stipulates that no party may reopen a case in a later lawsuit after it has been ultimately decided by a competent court. It protects parties from being vexed twice for the same reason and prevents multiple proceedings.

Related Section (section 11 cpc)

• A court will not hear a lawsuit if a competent court has already made a final ruling in a previous lawsuit involving the same parties and the same issue, according to the main clause in Section 11 of the CPC, 1908.

• Constructive res judicata, also known as Explanation IV, considers matters that “might and ought” to have been raised in the prior lawsuit to be directly and substantially in dispute; even if they weren’t, they will still be regarded as having been litigated.

Key Elements

• The second lawsuit’s subject matter must be directly and significantly the same as the first lawsuit’s.  
• The court must be qualified to decide the previous lawsuit and have the proper jurisdiction.
• In the first and subsequent lawsuits, the parties must be suing under the same title.    
• The case must have been heard and decided by the appropriate court.  
• The same parties or parties involved in the claim had to be involved in the initial lawsuit.  

Constructive Res Judicata in CPC

Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines the concept of constructive res judicata. It is designed to avoid relitigation of issues that were decided in a previous lawsuit as well as issues that could have been raised and decided but were not. 

By requiring all grounds pertaining to the same facts to be brought at once, it prevents endless litigation, upholds judicial finality, and increases court efficiency by extending the standard res judicata (a matter decided) rule by deeming unraised but relevant claims as already decided.

It opposes the public policies that form the foundation of the res judicata principle. Basically, it is in the interest of the state to end the litigation. It decreases the burden of the judiciary, which saves the time and resources of the state.

Basically the doctrine of res judicata is based on the latin maxim that are—

• “Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt.”

“Law does not protect a person who is not aware of their rights and sleeps on them.” 

• “Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” 

“It is in the interest of the state or society to have an end to the litigation.”

Example:

It is known as constructive res judicata if someone was in an automobile accident and only filed a lawsuit for property damage rather than personal injury. This is because, when filing a claim for the same incident, you could and ought to have included both personal injury and property damage. If not, you will not be allowed to file a second lawsuit for this.

Landmark Case Laws

1. In Daryao v. State of U.P. (1962), it was decided that writ petitions are subject to Res Judicata (Articles 226/32), which prohibits a second petition on merits in the event that the first was denied.

2. Res judicata applies to writ jurisdiction, emphasizing finality in constitutional disputes, according to the ruling in M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha (1959).

3. In Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Bombay (1964), the use of constructive res judicata in writ petitions was examined.

4. Constructive res judicata principles were made clear in State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain (1977).

Res Judicata Exceptions 

New Evidence Emerges: The court may reject this res judicata principle if there are substantial modifications or if new evidence emerges. This evidence could not be discovered with due diligence while the suit was pending. After the court hears the case and admits it, the order may be changed or revoked.

Writ of Habeas Corpus: It is crucial to remember that the doctrine of Res Judicata, which prohibits the re-litigation of cases that have already been definitively decided, does not apply to the writ of Habeas Corpus. Therefore, even after a prior decision has been made, unlawful detention may be challenged.

Fraud or Collusion: In subsequent litigation, the original judgment may not be enforceable if it was obtained through fraud or collusion. 

Incompetent Court: The decision may not be legally binding if the court that issued the initial ruling lacked the necessary jurisdiction.

Res Judicata And Res Sub Judice

Conclusion

According to the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), res judicata is a key idea that encourages finality and clarity in court cases. It saves judicial resources and shields parties from the burden of numerous lawsuits by preventing the re-litigation of matters that have already been decided. 

The doctrine guarantees that a matter cannot be reopened in later cases involving the same parties and issues once it has been definitively resolved by a competent court. However, this idea promotes public trust in the legal system while also preserving the integrity of court rulings. 

Ultimately, by ensuring that justice is not only carried out but also perceived to be carried out, providing litigants with closure, and supporting the efficient administration of justice, res judicata upholds the rule of law.