RES JUDICATA

res iudicata is the Latin term for "a matter already judged", and refers to the
legal doctrine meant to bar continued litigation of cases that have already been
decided between the same parties. The doctrine of res judicata is based on three
maxims

(a) Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa (no man should be vexed twice for
the same cause)
(b) Interest republicae ut sit finis litium ( it is in the interest of the state that
there should be an end to a litigation); and
(c) Re judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as
correct)

The Doctrine of Res Judicata can be understood as something which restrains the
either party to move the clock back .The extend of Res Judicata is very-very
wide and it includes a lot of things which even includes Public Interest Litigations.
This doctrine is applicable even outside the Code of Civil Procedure and covers a
lot of areas which are related to the society and people. The scope and the
extend has widened with the passage of time and the Supreme Court has
elongated the areas with its judgments. The legal concept of RJ arose as a
method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished as
well as to avoid unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res iudicata
does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but
also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, so a prevailing plaintiff
could not recover damages from the defendant twice for the same injury.

Res Judicata is a rule of universal law pervading every well regulated system of
jurisprudence and is based upon a practical necessity that there should be an
end to litigation and the hardship to the individual if he is vexed twice for the
same cause. Thus, this doctrine is a fundamental concept based on public policy
and private interest. It is conceived in the
larger public interest, which requires that every litigation must come to an end. It
therefore, applies to all kinds of suits such as civil suits, execution proceedings,
arbitration proceedings, taxation matters, writ petitions, administrative orders,
interim orders, and criminal proceedings.

Essential Elements for Res Judicata

1. The matter in issue in a subsequent suit must directly and substantially be

same as in the previous suit.
2. The former suit must have been between the same parties or between
parties under whom they or any of them claim.
3. Such parties must has been litigating under the same title in the former suit.
4. The court which decided the former suit must be a court competent to try
the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised.
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have
been heard and finally decided by the court in the former suit.

Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna [(2004) 7 SCC 251]

If the court is satisfied that subsequent suit can be decided purely on the legal
point, it is open to the court to decide such suit.

Slochana Amma V Narayana Nair 1994: Held, the doctrine of Res Judicata
applies to quasi judicial proceedings before tribunals also.

In Govndaswamy V Kasturi Ammal 1998: Held, the Doctrine of Res Judicata

applies to the plaintiff as well as the defendant.

Res Judicata And Writ Petitions

It was debatable whether the term suit would include writs and whether the
principle of res judicata would apply to writ petitions.

Daryao V. State Of U.P

-it is the Court which decides the former suit whose jurisdiction to try the
subsequent suit has to be considered and not the Court in which the former suit
may have been filed

-in order that a matter may be said to have been heard and finally decided
the decision in the former suit must have been on the merits. Where the former
suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction or for default of plaintiffs appearance,
or on the ground of non-joinder of parties or misjoinder of parties or
multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the
ground of a technical mistake, or for the failure on the part of the plaintiff to
produce probate or letters of administration or Succession Certificate when the
same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree or for failure to furnish
security for costs, or on the ground of improper valuation or for failure to pay
additional court fee on an undervalued plaint, or for want of cause of action, or
on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal if
any, the decision not being on merits would not lie res judicata in a subsequent
suit. .

Explanation I: The expression "former suit" shall denote a suit which has been
decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
Explanation II. For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall
be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the
decision of such Court.
Explanation III. The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been
alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by
the other.

Explanation IV. Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of
defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter
directly and substantially in issue in such suit.

Explanation V. Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by
the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been
refused.

Explanation VI. Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of public right or of a
private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons
interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to
claim under the persons so litigating.

Explanation VII. The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the
execution of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former
suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to proceedings for the
execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former
proceeding for the execution of that decree.

Explanation VIII. An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited

jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as
subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not
competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been
subsequently raised.