The Doctrine of Res Judicata or The Rule of Conclusiveness of a Judgement

  • Post category:Blog
  • Reading time:8 mins read

The Doctrine of Res Judicata or The Rule of Conclusiveness of a Judgement

Written by K.Sowndarya

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION:

Section 11 of the code of civil procedure embodies the doctrine of res judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of a judgement, as to the points decided either of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties. It enacts that once a matter is finally decided by a competent court, no party can be permitted to reopen it in subsequent litigation. 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. The doctrine has been accepted in all civilized legal systems, under Roman law, a defendant could successfully contest a suit filed by a plaintiff on the plea of “ex capito res judicata”. It was said, “one suit and one decision is enough for any single dispute”. In the words of Spencer Bower, res judicata means “a final judicial decision pronounced by a judicial tribunal having competent jurisdiction over the cause or matter in litigation and over the parties thereto”.

NATURE AND SCOPE:

“Res” means “subject matter” or “dispute” and “judicata” means “adjudged”, “decided” or “adjudicated”. “Res judicata” thus means “a matter adjudged” or a “dispute decide”. The doctrine of res judicata is conceived in the larger public interest which requires that all litigation must, sooner than later, come to an end. The principle is also found on justice, equity and a good conscience which require that a party who has once succeeded on an issue should not be harassed by a multiplicity of proceedings involving the same issue. Section 11 of the code contains in statutory form, illuminating explanations of very salutary principles of public policy. It embodies the rule of conclusiveness and operates as a bar to try the same issue once again. It thereby avoids vexatious litigation.

OBJECT:

The doctrine of res judicata is based on three maxims:

  • Nemo debet bis vexari una et eadem causa (no man should be vexed twice for the same cause)
  •  Interest reipiblicae ut sit finis litium (it in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a litigation)
  • Res judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct).

Illustrations:

A sues B for damages for breach of contract The suit is dismissed. A subsequent suit by A against B for damages for breach of the same contract is barred. A’s right to claim damages from B for breach of contract having been decided in the previous suit, it becomes res judicate, and cannot thereto be tried in the subsequent suit. B cannot be vexed twice over for the same cause (breach of contract). Moreover, public policy also requires that there should be an end to litigation and for that reason, the previous decision must be accepted as correct, lest every decision would be challenged on the ground that it was an erroneous decision and there would be no finality.

HISTORY

The rule of res judicata has a very ancient history. It was well understood by Hindu lawyers and Mohammedan jurists. It was known to ancient Hindu Law as Purva Nyaya (former judgment). Under Roman Law, it was recognised that “one suit and one decision was enough for any single dispute”. The doctrine was accepted in the European continent and in the Commonwealth countries.

At times, the rule worked harshly on individuals. For instance, when the former decision was obviously erroneous. But its working was justified on the great principle of public policy, which required that there must be an end to every litigation. The basis of the doctrine of res judicata is public interest and not absolute justice. In the event of a wrong decision, “the suffering citizen must appeal to the law-giver and not to the lawyer”.

EXTENT AND APPLICABILITY

The 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, therefore, applies to civil suits, execution proceedings, arbitration proceedings, taxation matters, industrial adjudication, writ petitions, administrative orders, interim orders, and criminal proceedings.

The doctrine of res judicata codified in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not exhaustive.

RES JUDICATA AND RULE OF LAW

The doctrine of res judicata is of universal application. In the historic decision of Daryao v. State of U.P: the Supreme Court has placed the doctrine of res judicata on a still broader foundation. In that case, the petitioners had filed writ petitions in the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution and they were dismissed. Thereafter, they filed substantive petitions in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for the same relief and on the same grounds. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition by contending that the prior decision of the High Court would operate as res judicata to a petition under Article 32. The Supreme Court upheld the contention and dismissed the petitions.

RES JUDICATA WHETHER TECHNICAL

No doubt, the rule of res judicata has some technical aspects. For instance, the rule of constructive res judicata is really technical in nature. Similarly, the pecuniary or subject-wise competence of the earlier forum to adjudicate the subject matter or grant reliefs sought in subsequent litigation can be said to be technical. However, the principle on which the doctrine is founded rests on public policy and public interest.

SECTION 11 WHETHER MANDATORY

Section 11 is mandatory. The plea of res judicata is a plea of law that touches the jurisdiction of a court to try the proceedings. A finding on that plea would oust the jurisdiction of a court. If the requirements of Section 11 are fulfilled, the doctrine of res judicata will apply and even a concession made by an advocate will not bind a party.

INTERPRETATION

The doctrine of res judicata should be interpreted and applied liberally. since the rule is founded on high public policy and upon the need to give finality to judicial decisions, a strict and technical construction should not be adopted. In deciding whether the doctrine would apply, its substance and not the form should be considered.

WAIVER

The plea of res judicata is not one which affects the jurisdiction of the court. The doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure and the party may waive the plea of res judicata.  Similarly, the court may decline to go into the question of res judicata on the ground that it has not been properly raised in the proceedings or in issues. The plea is one which could be waived.

Tags: , , ,