RES JUDICATA Shajeeda Tajdeen BASICS OF LAW Fri, Mar 13, 2020, at ,12:12 PM INTRODUCTION: The term ‘Res Judicata’ is a part of the full Latin maxim which reads as follows: ‘Res judicata pro veritate occipitur’. The concept of Res Judicata finds its growth from the English Common Law system, being derived from the overriding concept of judicial economy, consistency, and finality. From the common law, it got included in the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 and which was later as a whole was adopted by the Indian legal system. The Roman Law system advocates the concept that ‘one suit and one decision is enough for any single dispute’, which means that a defendant could question a suit filed by a plaintiff on the plea of ‘ex captio res judicata.’ ‘EX CAPTIO RES JUDICATA’, it basically means: It states that once a matter which has been finally concluded by a court of competent jurisdiction then, no party can be allowed to reopen it in subsequent litigation. PURPOSE OF RES JUDICATA: The doctrine of res judicata is the outcome of three maxims: Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no man should be punished 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 litigation) Res judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct) Thus, the doctrine of res judicata is an amalgamated result of the public policy mirrored in maxims (2) and (3) and the concept of private justice conveyed in maxim (1) and all three mentioned above are made applicable to all the judicial proceedings whether civil or criminal. ESSENTIALS TO RES JUDICATA: There must be two suits, one previously instituted and the other subsequently instituted. The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same as in the previous suit. The parties or their representatives in both the suits should also be the same. The previously instituted suit must be pending in the same court in which subsequent suit is brought in any other court or in court beyond the limits of India continued by Central Government or SC. The court in which the previous suit is instituted must have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit. The parties in both the suits should litigate under the same titles in both cases. BINDING FACTORS FOR RES JUDICATA: identity in the thing at suit; identity of the cause at suit; identity of the parties to the action; identity in the designation of the parties involved; whether the judgment was final; whether the parties were given full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue. With regards to the classification of the parties involved, a person may be involved in action while filling a given office and may subsequently initiate the same action in a differing capacity. In such a situation the defence of Res Judicata will not be available unless the defendant could prove differing designations were not legitimate and sufficient. JUDICIAL DECISIONS: Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi:[1] it was held that “When a matter, whether on a question of fact or law, has been decided between two parties in one suit and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to the higher court, or no appeal lies in such case, neither party will be allowed in the future suit between the same parties to canvass the matter again.” Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal[2]: it was held that “a court cannot proceed with the subsequently instituted suit since the provisions contained in Sec. 10 of CPC are mandatory, and no discretion is left with the court”. Lal Chand v. Radha Krishan:[3] the court stated that, “the principle of res judicata is based on the concept of justice, equity and good conscience”, it further declared that, “Once a final judgment has been announced in a lawsuit, the subsequent judges who are confronted with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one, they would apply the Res Judicata doctrine ‘to preserve the effect of the first judgment”. This is done to prevent injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources and time of the Judicial System. Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna: [4] it was held by the court that, “If a court is satisfied that subsequent suit can be decided purely on the legal point, it is open to the court to decide such suit. Then the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not at all exhaustive even though it has very wide and enlarged amplitude. The section “does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court” but “operates as par to the trial” of the suit or issue, if the matter in the suit was directly and substantially in issue (and finally decided) in the previous suit between the same parties litigating under the same title in a Court, then they are not competent i.e. they become barred to try the subsequent suit in which such issue has been raised. The onus of proof lies on the party relying on the theory of Res Judicata. The provisions of section 11 of C.P.C. are ‘not a directory but mandatory’. The judgment in a former suit can be avoided only by taking recourse to section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act on the ground of fraud or collusion. Conclusion The Doctrine of Res Judicata controls both or either party to a litigation to ‘move the clock back during the pendency of the already initiated proceeding. The concept of Res Judicata brings within its ambit Public Interest Litigation along with other civil and criminal proceedings. It should be taken into consideration that in exceptional circumstances, cases that appear to be Res Judicata may be re-litigated. As for instance, People who have had their liberty taken away (that is, imprisoned) may be allowed to be re-tried with a counsellor as a matter of fairness. It should be understood that the doctrine of Res Judicata does not restrict the appeals process. The critiques of this doctrine are of the view that the appeal process is not but a linear extension of the same lawsuit as the suit travels up (and back down) the appellate court ladder. Appeals are considered to be a more suitable way to challenge a judgment of the lower court rather than starting a whole new case all over again. It is after the exhaustion or waiving off, of the appeal process the doctrine of Res Judicata will be made applicable to a judgment that is contrary to law. The Judiciary has time and again extended the scope of this doctrine depending upon the need for justice. This doctrine plays a pivotal role in curbing multiplicity of litigation and in turn, protects the Court system from being overburdened. [1] AIR 1960 SC 941 [2] AIR (1962) SC 527 [3] (1977) 2 SCC 88 [4] (2004) 7 SCC 251