The Principle of Res Judicata | Achieving Finality in Litigation?

What is the principle of res judicata?

As per Justice K.C. Das Gupta, the principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily, it applies as between past litigation and future litigation. When a matter — whether on a question of fact or a question of law — has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again.

Where is it embodied in?

The principle of res judicata is embodied in relation to suits in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but even where Section 11 does not apply, the principle of res judicata has been applied by courts for the purpose of achieving finality in litigation. The result of this is that the original court as well as any higher court must in any future litigation proceed on the basis that the previous decision was correct.

What is the principle on which it is based on?

The rule of conclusiveness of a judgment or the doctrine of res judicata is based on the principle that all litigation must sooner than later come to an end. It is founded on equity, justice, good conscience, and requires that once a party has succeeded on an issue, such a party should not be harassed by multiplicity of proceedings on the same issue.

What is its origin?

The doctrine res judicata has originated from the English common law system and has also been termed as Purva Nyaya (former judgment) in the Hindu laws. The Commonwealth nations have acknowledged that once the matter has been decided by the trial court, it should not be attempted again.

Which maxims apply to res judicata?

The doctrine of res judicata is based on three maxims, namely - nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no man should be vexed twice for the same cause), interest reipublicae 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).

What are the Supreme Court’s observations on res judicata?

The Supreme Court has time and again held that res judicata also applies to the public interest litigation filed under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgments pronounced by the Courts possess a binding character and the State must preserve the authenticity of such pronouncements.

What are the exceptions to res judicata?

The Supreme Court has also provided some exceptions to the doctrine of res judicata that apply when a judgment is passed by a court lacking jurisdiction, when a matter involves a pure question of law, and, when a judgment has been obtained by committing fraud on the Court.

What is constructive res judicata?

Res judicata is confined to a matter actually in issue but another principle known as the principle of constructive res judicata, is an artificial form of res judicata. It provides that a party to a subsequent suit could invoke this principle on the ground that a matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in a former suit, shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such a suit.

What was held in Workmen v. Board of Trustees, Cochin Port Trust?

In Workmen v. Board of Trustees, Cochin Port Trust, (1978) 3 SCC 119, the Supreme Court observed that though the doctrine of res judicata is codified in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but it is not exhaustive. Section 11 generally comes into play in relation to civil suits. But apart from the codified law the doctrine of res judicata or the principle of res judicata has been applied since long in various other kinds of proceedings and situations by courts in England, India and other countries. The rule of constructive res judicata is engrafted in Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in many other situations also, principles not only of direct res judicata but of constructive res judicata are also applied. If by any judgment or order any matter in issue has been directly and explicitly decided, the decision operates as res judicata and bars the trial of an identical issue in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties. The principle of res judicata also comes into play when by the judgment and order a decision of a particular issue is implicit in it, that is, it must be deemed to have been necessarily decided by implication, then also the principle of res judicata on that issue is directly applicable. When any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in a former proceeding but was not so made, then such a matter in the eye of law, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to bring about finality in it, is deemed to have been constructively in issue and, therefore, is taken as decided.

What was held in Daryao v. State of U.P.?

In Daryao v. State of U.P., (1962) 1 SCR 574, the Supreme Court observed that the judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is as a plea, a bar, or as evidence, conclusive between the same parties, upon the same matter, directly in question in another court and that the judgment of a court of exclusive jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is in like manner conclusive upon the same matter, between the same parties, coming incidentally in question in another court for a different purpose. The Court also observed that the doctrine of res judicata is not a technical doctrine applicable only to records but it is a fundamental doctrine of all courts that there must be an end of litigation. The doctrine applies equally in all courts, and it is immaterial in what court the former proceeding was taken, provided only that it was a Court of competent jurisdiction, or what form the proceeding took, provided it was really for the same cause. Res judicata is a rule of universal law pervading every well-regulated system of jurisprudence, and is put upon two grounds, embodied in various maxims of the common law; the one, public policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation, the other, the hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same cause.

What are the other important judgments on the doctrine?

In Swamy Atmananda v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam, (2005) 10 SCC 51, it was held that the principle of res judicata envisages that a judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction directly upon a point would create a bar as regards a plea, between the same parties in some other matter in another court, where the said plea seeks to raise afresh the very point that was determined in the earlier judgment. In Ajay Arjun Singh v. Sharadendu Tiwari, (2016) 6 SCC 576, it was held that vague, cryptic and casual order in former proceeding containing finding that was neither directly in issue nor properly examined, cannot amount to res judicata.

In Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajit Singh, (2005) 3 SCC 232, it was held that the principle of res judicata is not applicable in case of decisions relating to jurisdictional facts. In T.P. Moideen Koya v. State of Kerala, (2004) 8 SCC 106, it was held that the bar of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would not apply to a writ of habeas corpus where the petitioner prays for setting him at liberty.

In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1, it was held that the principle of res judicata would apply only when the lis was inter partes and had attained finality in respect of the issues involved. In Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, (2005) 1 SCC 787, it was held that the principles of res judicata apply in different stages of the same proceedings.

In N.R. Narayan Swamy v. B. Francis Jagam, (2001) 6 SCC 473, it was held that the ground of bona fide need is a recurring cause of action as such landlord is not precluded from filing fresh proceedings for eviction if on the date of the fresh suit his requirement is bona fide. In Union of India v. Assn. of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India, (2011) 10 SCC 543, it was held that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity thus cannot operate as res judicata, even if such order attains finality in favour of some parties by virtue of not being appealed against.

Why is the doctrine important?

The Indian Judiciary is currently overwhelmed with frivolous claims, making it crucial to effectively apply the doctrine of res judicata to conserve judicial resources. Courts need to utilize this doctrine more frequently to ensure finality in litigation, preventing chaos and confusion regarding people’s rights. This principle has always aimed to stop the misuse of legal processes and to promote fairness and justice. Without constructive application of this doctrine, there would be no end to litigation, and preventing the filing of repetitive proceedings would be extremely challenging. Therefore, it is imperative to employ this doctrine to uphold justice, equity, and good conscience.

Muneeb Rashid Malik is an Advocate practicing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and he is the Legal Advisor to Kashmir Uzma. He tweets @muneebmalikrash.

The contents of this article are intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.