In the world of ever evolving litigation the doctrine of Res judicata and Sub judice save the court's time and resources in preventing hearing of the repeated disputes. However, the suit's ability to be heard in court of its maintainability depend on various factors which involve various challenges and responsibilities.

In order to understand them let us first understand res judicata it means when a lawsuit which is strikingly similar to the previous lawsuit comes before the court, the court check the maintainability of the suit, it delves into questions like whether the suit is maintainable or it is barred by the principle of re-judicata. Res-subjudice on the other hand denotes when two or more cases are filed by the same parties under the same subject matter the court has the power to stay on the proceedings to subsequent suit to avoid multiplicity.

It is important to understand the origin of these principles. The historical roots of res judicata delve deep into the foundations of ancient legal systems, Roman law established the system of res-judicata which bar the re-opening of the case which is already decided. The principle can be well founded in the writings of Giaus a roman jurist. Similarly in Hindu law Purva Nyaya (former judgement) and Mulla in his treatise "The principles of Hindu Law" the principle is well recognised.

In the United States and England, the principle can be traced back to the writs where defence against specific writ would bar the defendant from using same write for the same cause of action. The origins of Sub-judice traced back to Roman law where Lis pendens (pending suit) was established. Both these principles are well founded under Civil procedure code Section 10 deals with res sub judice and Section 11 deals with res-judicata.

The principle of res-judicata and Res-sub-judice is very important in the administration of justice as Res judicata helps in promoting judicial efficiency by saving the court's time in re-addressing the matter of the settled dispute. Res-sub judice on the other hand stop the multiplicity of the cases in proceedings it helps in preventing unnecessary harassment by getting two separate judgements from different court on the same legal dispute.

Res judicata

Res judicata is a Latin term which mean "a thing adjudged" in simpler terms it means when a matter is already tried by the competent court then the same matter cannot be re-adjudicated by the court on the same subject matter. It helps in preventing the repetitive litigation for the same subject matter as well as it also helps in judicial efficiency.

The doctrine is based upon 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 (there should be a state interest to end the litigation) and Res judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision should be accepted as correct).

Section 11 of CPC talks about res judicata it states that no court shall try a suit which is directly or substantial in issue or in former suit litigating under same title and has been decided by the court. For instance, A sues B for damages under breach of contract now A cannot sue B again for the same contract because it has been barred by the principle of res judicata.

Types:
There are two types of res judicata first is claim preclusion (cause of action estoppel) and the other one is issue preclusion (collateral estoppel). Claim preclusion bars the party from relitigating the entire cause of action that has been already decided by the court under competent jurisdiction that means even if the parties bring new relief or arguments, they are still barred from bringing another litigation on the same facts and legal theories. In issue preclusion bars relitigating on specific legal issues not the entire cause of action.

For instance, the issue in question have been litigated in prior suit, the issue has reached to its final determinant, the determination of the issue should be essential and the parties should be in the prior legal suit then the principle of issue preclusion applies. The court in both the cases will not entertain the litigation which is barred under res-judicata whether it is with entire cause of action or with specific legal issues.

Maintainability

Maintainability of the suit entails the essential legal requirements of the suit to be presented before the court. It depends on various factors such as jurisdiction, limitation period and locus standi.

• Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is the court authority to hear a litigation. However, it has to consider two major factors such as subject matter, which is the court's power to address the legal issue presented in the suit, and personal jurisdiction, which is the court's authority over parties involved, for instance, a defendant residing within the court's district, etc.
   
• Limitation period: Limitation periods are statutes of limitation. If the parties fail to file suit within a specified time period, they are barred from being heard by the court.
   
• Locus Standi: The plaintiff must be directly or indirectly affected by the defendant's action. If there is no personal stake in the outcome of the case, the court may refrain from hearing the dispute and will dismiss the case.

Maintainability in Res-judicata

Maintainability determines whether the suit is eligible to be presented before the court and res judicata bars the suit to be presented before the court if the suit is not definitely decided on entire claim and specific issues involved. Let us understand it better through case study.

Parklane Hosiery Co. V. Shore is the case on application of claim preclusion on maintainability, in this case A sued B for antitrust violation the case was dismissed on summary judgement however A again filed the same suit with similar claims on antitrust violation . The court ruled in Favor of B stating that legal theories presented might be slightly different however the core issue remains the same. Hence it is barred by principle of res-judicata to bring the same claim to the court.

In the case of Draryao vs state of Uttar Pradesh the court formulated the principle of res-judicata. In this case petitioner filed writ petition under Allahabad High court under 226 of the constitution. However, the suit was dismissed. Then they filed another petition before supreme court under Article 32.

The defendants raised the objection on the contention that prior decision of high court would be operating as res judicata. The court held the petition under Article 32 is barred as petition under article 226 was dismissed on merits therefore relitigating under Article 32 would involve a similar petition and hence violate Section 11.

In the case of Indu Bhusan Jana v. Union of India, the Calcutta High Court also emphasised that the principle of finality or res judicata is a matter of public policy and is one of the pillars on which a judicial system is founded. In this regard, the Court" held:
Once a judgment becomes conclusive, the matters in issue covered thereby cannot be reopened unless fraud or mistake or lack of jurisdiction is cited to challenge it directly at a later stage. The principle is rooted to the rationale that the issues decided may not be reopened, and has little to do with the merit of the decision. If it were to be otherwise, no dispute can be resolved or concluded. The principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata apply equally to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Res-sub-judice

Res sub-judice translates into "under judgement" it simply means when there are matter before the two courts involves the same legal questions under same facts and parties. The subsequent court can stay on the proceedings when it finds that matter is already sub-judice under a former competent court. It avoids multiplicity of the legal proceedings.

Section 10 of the CPC talks about sub-judice under this section court can temporarily stay on the proceedings until the matter before the other court reach to its conclusion. For instance, A(wife) filed suit for separation of conjugal life and minor child custody against B (husband). Subsequently husband B claimed custody of minor child by filing another suit against wife A. In this case second suit is liable to stay under section 10 of principle of sub-judice.

Maintainability

The maintainability of suit under Sub-judice is not applicable when issues are distinct or different, it is also not applicable when some issues are in common while others are different. In the case of Ragho Prasad Gupta v. Shri Krishna Poddar the court held that res sub judice will not apply when the matter in the suit is completely different from the suit that was first initiated.

However, in determining the applicability of Res sub judice court considers the nature of the parties, they consider whether the matter before the courts is substantially similar or involve identical parties, the identity also determined by the parties who have substantial interest in the subject matter. It is to be noted that principle of Res judice is not absolute therefore court has power to maintain the suit if it considers that it is filed with bona fide interest, it has different grounds or have different reliefs. However, the discretion has to be applied with caution in interest of justice.

Conclusion
The concept of Res judicata in Section 11 avoid re-litigation of the same matter when the competent court has given a final judgement or decided on substantial issue. There is a need for the final judgement on entire claim or substantial issue by the competent court. It is also necessary that the judgement is not subject to further appeal and challenges, the suit should involve the same cause of action and are identical to the factual and legal issues, further the parties in both the suits should be similar or substantially similar then the principle of res-judicata will be applicable.

However, there are various challenges such as ambiguity regarding maintainability of the suit particularly related to deciding substantial issue, it is very important to develop clear and precise standard for application of res-judicata to address the challenges.

The concept of res-subjudice applies when the matter in both the issues are substantially similar, or when the matter is previously pending in the former suit. The purpose of Section 10 is to avoid multiplicity of the suit on the same subject matter to avoid unnecessary harassment. The purpose of this principle in maintainability is limiting the law to one legislation and avoid likelihood of conflict by two contradictory decisions on the same relief.

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Dedipya Tawri

Authentication No: SP424588385043-1-0924