Res Judicata under Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Res judicata is a plea prescribed under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a doctrine
applied to give finality to a lis in original or appellate proceedings. The doctrine in substance
means that an issue or a point decided and having attained finality, should not be allowed to be
re-opened and re-agitated over again. The meaning of “res” is “everything that may form an
object of rights and includes an object, subject matter or status” and res judicata means “a matter
adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgement”. All
civilized legal system have accepted the doctrine of res judicata. Under the Roman Law, a
defendant could successfully contest a suit filed by a plaintiff on the plea of “ex captio res
judicata”

In Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi [1], it was held that the principle of res judicata is based
on the need of giving finality to judicial decision. Further, in the absence of such a rule, there
will be no end to litigation and the parties would be put in constant trouble, harassment, and
expenses.

DEFINTITION OF RESJUDICATA
(I) According to Spencer Sower:
Res judicata means final judicial decision pronounced by a judicial tribunal having competent
jurisdiction over the cause or matter in litigation and over the parties thereto".

(II) According to justice Das Gupta

THE DOCTRINE OF RES-JUDICATA IS BASED ON THREE MAXIMS:

1. Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa – It  means that no person  should be vexed
annoyed, harassed  or vexed two times for the same cause;
2. Interest republicae ut sit finis litium – It means that it is in  the interest of the state that
there should be an end of litigation; and
3. Re judicata pro veritate occipitur – Decision of the court should be adjudged as true.

Res Judicata under Section 11 Civil Procedure Code, 1908

The doctrine of Res Judicata has been defined in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The
doctrine of the Res Judicata means the matter is already judged. It means that no court will have
the power to try any fresh suit or issues which has been already settled in the former suit between
the same parties. Also, the court will not try the suits and issue between those parties under
whom the same parties are litigating under the same title and matter are already been judged and
decided by the competent court. When the court finds any suits or issues which has been already
decided by the court and there is no appeal pending before in any court, the court has the power
to dispose of the case by granting a decree of Res  Judicata. This doctrine is based on the
premises that if the matter is already decided by the competent court then no one has rights to
reopen it with the subsequent suit. It also enacts the conclusiveness of the judgments as to the
points decided, in every subsequent suit between the same parties[3]. The doctrine of Res
Judicata is applied by the court where issues directly and substantially involved between the
same parties in the former and present suit, are same. For eg, It may be that in former suit only
part of the property was involved whereas in present or subsequent suit whole property of the
parties is involved Than court will grant a decree of Res Judicata.

Conditions for application of Res Judicata (Section 11 of CPC,1908)

 There must be two suits – One former & other subsequent: Former suit means
previously decided suit. It doesn’t matter when the suit was instituted. What it matters is
when the decision came from the court. For example,
Suit Filled on Suit Decided    on Former suit

1/10/2012 Still pending No

1/01/2013 10/11/2017 Yes

 Matter directly and substantially in the subsequent suit: It means that matter must be
directly related to the suit. It must not be collateral or incidental to the issue. For
example, ‘A’ and her mother filed a suit against her father’s brother for claiming a share
in the property of her mother. The question of marriage expenses was not directly or
substantially in issue. The claim of partition was dismissed by the court. However, the
principle of res judicata doesn’t bar ‘A’ to file a subsequent suit for her marriage
expenses as the matter was not directly in issue in the former suit.
 There must be same parties: The parties to a suit are those whose name appears on the
record of the suit at the time of the decision. A party who withdraws or whose name is
stuck off is not considered as a party. Further, a minor not represented by the guardian for
the suit is not a party to the suit. Where any decision made by the court in favor of or
against any party then it not only binds the party but also their successors too. For an
instance, a suit filed by any person for recovery of possession and ownership title and the
court decided in his favor, then his legal heirs also considered as the parties after his
death and res judicata will apply.
 There must be the same title: ‘Same title’ means ‘in same capacity’. It has been held in
the number of cases that ‘a verdict against a man suing in one capacity will not stop him
when he sues in another capacity’. For example, ‘A’ file suit against ‘B’ as the owner of
property and suit is dismissed by the court. Later on, he filed a suit to claim his right as
mortgagee will not bar him to institute a subsequent case. So where the suit is filed in a
different capacity then it is considered to be a valid suit and doesn’t bar by this doctrine.
 The decision must be made by the competent court: The Former decision must be given
by competent court having jurisdiction on the case. If the case is decided by the court has
no jurisdiction over the subject matter then res judicata will not apply. For an instance,
revenue courts exercising authority under the Act can be held to be a court of limited
jurisdiction and decision by it within its competence will operate as res judicata.
  Heard and finally decided: The matter directly & substantially in issue in subsequent suit
must have been heard and finally decided by the court in a former suit. “Heard and
finally decided” means that the court has exercised its judicial mind & after argument and
consideration came to decision on contested matter and decision is made on the merits of
the case. In following cases the matter is deemed to be finally decided on merits even if
the former suit is disposed of in the following manner:
1. By ex parte
2. By dismissal
3. By decree on an award
4. By oath tender under section 8 on Indian Oath Act,1873
5. By dismissal owing to plaintiff failed to produce evidence at the hearing.

Exceptions to the Plea of Res Judicata

1. Judgment in original suit obtained by the fraud – if a court thinks that the judgment of
former suit is obtained by the fraud, then the doctrine of the res judicata is not applied.
2. When previous SLP is dismissed – When special leave petition is dismissed without
adjudication or decision then res judicata should not be applied. For obtaining  Doctrine
of Res Judicata, the formal suit should be decided finally by the competent court.
3. Different cause of action – Section 11 will not be applied when there is a different cause
of action in the subsequent suits. The court cannot bar subsequent suit if it contains the
different cause of action.
4. When there is Interlocutory Order – Interlocutory order is the interim order, decree or
sentence passed by the court.  A principle of the Res Judicata will be not applied when an
interlocutory order is passed on the former suit. It is because in Interlocutory order
immediate relief is given to the parties and it can be altered by subsequent application
and there is no finality of the decision.
5. Waiver of a decree of Res Judicata –  Decree of Res Judicata is a plea in the bar which
party must waive. If a party did not raise the plea of res judicata then the matter will be
decided against him. It is the duty of an opposite party to make the court aware about the
adjudication of matter in former suit. If a party fails to do so, the matter is decided against
him.
6. Court not competent to decide – When the former suit is decided by the court who has
no jurisdiction to decide the matter then the doctrine of res judicata is not applied to the
subsequent suit.
7. When there is a change in Law –  When there is a change in the law and new laws bring
new rights to the parties then such rights are not barred by Section 11.

When the court fails to apply Res Judicata

If the court fails to apply for the res judicata and orders a contradictory decision on the same
issue and Afterwards matter is listed to the third court then the third court will apply res judicata
on the basis of the decision on the previous suit. Thus it is the duty and responsibility of the
parties to the suit to bring the earlier case to the attention of the court and Judge will decide on
whether a plea of Res judicata should be granted or not.