However, there are limited exceptions to res judicata that allow a party to attack the validity of the original judgment, even outside of appeals. These exceptions--usually called collateral attacks--are typically based on procedural or jurisdictional issues, based not on the wisdom of the earlier court's decision but its authority or competence to issue it. A collateral attack is more likely to be available (and to succeed) in judicial systems with multiple jurisdictions, such as under federal governments, or when a domestic court is asked to enforce or recognize the judgment of a foreign court.
When a subsequent court fails to apply res judicata and renders a contradictory verdict on the same claim or issue, if a third court is faced with the same case, it will likely apply a "last in time" rule, giving effect only to the later judgment, even though the result came out differently the second time. This situation is not unheard of, as it is typically the responsibility of the parties to the suit to bring the earlier case to the judge's attention, and the judge must decide how broadly to apply it, or whether to recognize it in the first place.
In a recently reported decision Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Vithu Hira Mahar (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., the Supreme Court has explained the doctrine of constructive res judicata as applicable in Indian law. A sub-set of the doctrine of res judicata, emanating from Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the doctrine of constructive res judicata sets to naught any claims being raised in a subsequent proceeding where in an earlier proceeding such claim should / ought to have been raised and decided. A rule of prudence, thus, the doctrine seeks to bar determination and enforcement of claims which have not been raised at an appropriate juncture in judicial proceedings.
- Res Judicata As Defined Under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines Res Judicata as:
No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
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. The doctrine of res judicata is based on three maxims
- Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa (no man should be vexed twice for the same cause)
- Interest republicae ut sit finis litium ( it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a litigation); and
- Re judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct)
As observed by Sir Lawrence Jenkins, the rule of res judicata, while founded on account of precedent, is dictated by a wisdom is for all times.
Referring to the opinion of the Judges expressed in 1776 in the Duches of Kingston's Case to which reference has been invariably made in most of the cases by the Indian courts. It was said in that case:
"From the variety of cases relative to judgments being given in evidence in civil suits, these two deductions seem to follow as generally true : first the judgment of a Court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly upon the points, is as a plea, a bar, or as evidence conclusive, between the same parties, upon the same matter, directly in question in another Court; secondly 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. But neither the judgment of a concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence of any matter which came collaterally in question, though within their jurisdiction, nor of any matter incidentally cognizable, nor of any matter to be inferred by argument from the judgment."
Thus, this doctrine of res judicata 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 therefor, applies to civil suits, execution proceedings, arbitration proceedings, taxation matters, writ petitions, administrative orders, interim orders, criminal proceedings, etc.
An ordinary litigation being a party or claiming under a party of a former suit cannot avoid the applicability of section 11 of CPC as it is mandatory except on the ground of fraud or collusion as the case may be. Res Judicata in fact means Thing which had been adjudged the essential ingredients of which are to be considered while deciding whether a particular judgment operated as res judicata or not be postulated as follows:
- Matter which was directly and substantially in issue in former suit must be directly and substantially issue in the subsequent suit also.
- Both the former and subsequent suit should have been between the parties or between the parties litigating under some titles.
- The former suit should have been decided by competent court which can try subsequent suit also.
- Any matter, which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in each suit.
The onus of proof lies on the party relying on the theory of res judicata.
SECTION 11 OF CPC IS MANDATORY
the provisions of section 11 of CPC are not 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. Where several defendants are there, in a suit the collusion of one of them alone is not enough to avoid the operation of rule of res judicata. Gross negligence is different from fraud and collusion.
In Swamy Atmandanda vs. Sri Ramakrishna, Tapovanam it was held by this court “The object and purport of the principle of res judicata as contended in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to uphold the rule of conclusiveness of judgment, as to the points decided earlier of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties. Once the matter which was the subject-matter of is stood determined by a competent court, no party thereafter can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. Such a rule was brought into the statute-book with a view to bring the litigation to an end so that the other side may not be put to harassment. 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.”
When the material issue has been tried and determined between the same parties in a proper suit by a competent court as to the status of one of them in relation to the other, it cannot be again tried in another suit between them as laid down in Krishna Behari Roy vs. Bunwari Lal Roy , which is followed by this Court in the case of Ishwar Dutt Vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr., wherein the doctrine of `cause of action estoppel’ and `issue estoppel’ has been discussed. It is laid down by this Court, that if there is an issue between the parties that is decided, the same would operate as a res-judicata between the same parties in the subsequent proceedings. This court in the case of Isher Singh vs. Sarwan Singh, has observed :
“ We thus reach the position that in the former suit the heir ship of the respondents to Jati deceased (a) was in terms raised by the pleadings, (b) that an issue was framed in regard to it by the trial Judge, (c) that evidence was led by the parties on that point directed towards this issue, (d) a finding was recorded on it by the appellate court, and (e) that on the proper construction of the pleadings it would have been necessary to decide the issue in order to properly and completely decide all the points arising in the case to grant relief to the plaintiff. We thus find that every one of the conditions necessary to satisfy the test as to the applicability of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is satisfied.”
So far as the finding drawn in the suit for injunction in O.S. No.104 of 1953, regarding adoption would also operate as a res-judicata in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair. It is observed: “The decision in earlier case on the issue between the same parties or persons under whom they claim title or litigating under the same title, it operates as a res-judicata. A plea decided even in a suit for injunction touching title between the same parties, would operate as res-judicata. It is a settled law that in a Suit for injunction when title is in issue, for the purpose of granting injunction, the issue directly and substantially arises in that suit between the parties when the same is put in issue in a later suit based on title between the same parties or their privies in a subsequent suit, the decree in injunction suit equally operates as a res-judicata.”
Reference may be made to the decision of this court in the case of Sulochana Amma vs. Narayanan Nair, on the issue between the same parties or persons under whom they claim title or litigating under the same title, it operates as a res-judicata. A plea decided even in suit for injunction touching the title between the same parties, would operate as res judicata : “It is a settled law that in a suit for injunction when title is in issue, for the purpose of granting injunction the issue directly and substantially arises in that suit between the parties. When the same is put in issue in a later suit based on title between the same parties or their privies in a subsequent suit, the decree in injunction suit equally operates as a res judicata.”
To the same effect, the judgment of this court in the case of Sulochana Amma vs. Narayanan Nair, in which it has been held that the issue between the same parties or persons under whom they claim title or litigating under the same title, it operates as a res-judicata. A plea decided even in suit for injunction touching the title between the same parties, would operate as res judicata.
4. Conclusion
The doctrine of prevents a litigant from getting yet another day in court after the first lawsuit is concluded by giving a different reason than he gave in the first for recovery of damages for the same invasion of his right. The rule provides that when a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final on the merits of a cause of action, the parties to the suit and their privies are bound "not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose." A final judgment on the merits bars further claims by the same parties based on the same .
Res judicata prevents a plaintiff from suing on a claim that already has been decided and also prevents a defendant from raising any new defense to defeat the enforcement of an earlier judgment. It also precludes relitigation of any issue, regardless of whether the second action is on the same claim as the first one, if that particular issue actually was contested and decided in the first action. Former adjudication is an analogue of the criminal law concept of double jeopardy.
Bibliography
Sathe SP, , 7th Edition, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa 2004
Jain MP, Cases and Materials on Indian Administrative Law, 1ST Edition, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa 1994
Massey I.P., , 7th Edition, Eastern Book Company, 2008
2 Smith's L.C. 13th edn. 644, 645
