The term "Res Judicata" has been widely recognized in legal frameworks all over the globe as a doctrine of finality, which fixates over the idea that a case which has already undergone litigation and has been decided upon, cannot be reopened as long as it satisfies some essential conditions. The doctrine of Res judicata is under the spotlight of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

There are three Latin maxims, which are said to be the source of the doctrine as a whole, can be traced back to, First, "interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium" which means that in the interests of the state there should be an end to litigation, and the second maxim "Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa" which means that No person should be vexed twice over for the same cause, and thirdly the maxim "Res Judicata pro veritate accipitur" which means that the decision of a judicial authority must be duly accepted as correct.

Hence, the said doctrine via incorporation in the Code was brought into force to bring a finality to the verdicts made by the court so as to prevent further confusion regarding various cause of actions, the conclusions of which have already been reached so as to bring an end to the endless loop of litigation which would follow and reduce the harassment caused to not only the parties but to all the litigating parties involved in the lawsuit.

An elaborate explanation upon the doctrine of Res Judicata, was viewed in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal v Deorjin Debi.[1] This case among many others, elucidates upon this concept, which would only be used as precedent in further cases. The judgement here, delivered by Justice Das Gupta sheds light on the doctrine in brief but concise words. He briefly stated that "The principle of Res Judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions.

What it says is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again". "When a matter whether on a question of fact or on a question of law has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matters again."[2] This judgement in brief explains the application and gives a broader and definitive meaning to the concept of Res Judicata in the Context of Civil or Criminal litigation.

Historical Significance Of The Doctrine:
Diving into the historical significance of the Doctrine of Res Judicata, we see that the origins of the doctrine can be traced back to Roman law. The articulation of this doctrine however is said to have been first seen in English Common law, in the Case of the Duchess of Kingston in 1776. In the aforementioned case, Sir William De Grey, C.j, laid down the following principle, "The Judgment of a Court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is, as a plea, a bar, or as evidence, conclusive between the same parties, upon the same matter, directly in question in another Court."[3]

In the context of India, the principal of Res Judicata can be vaguely traced to the Madras Regulation II of 1802 which laid down the simple rule that "when a second suit may be instituted for the same cause of action such second Suit should be dismissed with costs to be paid by the Plaintiff."[4]

Despite seemingly referring only to the Rule of Bar by Judgment, by 1850, Indian Courts had begun to apply this provision to incorporate both causes of action and issues. Hence, writing in 1850, MacPherson duly formulated the rule of Res Judicata in the following terms: "A Civil Court cannot entertain any cause which from the production of a former decree, or of the records of the Court, shall appear to have been heard and determined by any former Judge, or by any superintendent of a Court having competent jurisdiction; or even one, which under the rules against the splitting of claims, ought to have been included in a previous suit.

A cause may fairly be considered to have been heard and determined before, if the subject matter of the former Suit was the same; the parties, or at least the parties really and effectively interested, the same; the issue the same; if the proceedings were taken for the same purpose; the jurisdiction competent; and if the claim, which is sought to be enforced, has been directly adjudicated upon in a former Suit by a decree or order, declaring or recognizing a right, or negativing it by the dismissal of a Plaint."[5]

The explanation here so provided evidently proves that the idea of bar by verdict as well as bar by judgement were incorporated into the concept of Res Judicata that was being followed by the Courts up until 1850. This settled position however was drastically changed upon the enactment of the First Civil Code Procedure, which was passed in 1859. Section 2 of the Code stated that:
"The civil courts shall not take cognizance of any suit brought on a cause of action which shall have been heard and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, in a former suit, between the same parties or between parties under whom they claim." From the wordings of the section, it was clear that the Code had only codified the bar by judgement aspect of Res Judicata.

Soon enough, numerous cases arose in 1859 where despite the cause of action being distinct, the courts were required to rehear issues which have already been heard and decided by the previous court, in adherence to the law laid down by Section 2, which had evidently failed to incorporate the component of bar by verdict, in its definition and meaning, leading to the plethora of unnecessary litigation.

In response to the issues so created by the incorporation of only one component i.e. bar by judgement in the definition of Res Judicata, on the recommendations of the law commission, in 1877 the Code of Civil Procedure was substantially altered and re-enacted in India. After substantial reformulation, the new redrafted definition of Res Judicata was incorporated under Section 13 of the new Code. A key member of the Law Commission i.e. Whitley Stokes, describes the language of Section 13 as having been 'founded on' Livingston's famous Code of Evidence for the State of Louisiana.[6]

Thus, section 13 under the new code stated that:
"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."

Here inherently, the wordings of the section had been reformulated to make significant changes, especially by shifting the issue of finality of cause of actions, to the finality of lawsuits or issue of law, hereby incorporating both components of bar by judgement and bar by verdict, eliminating the flaws of the first code. In the following decades, the 1877 code underwent modification until the enactment of the Code of Civil Procedure in 1908.

Fundamentals Of The Doctrine And Analysis:
Firstly, to enable the doctrine of Res Judicata, there are several essential factors which have to be satisfied, the following is the list of essential conditions:

• There must be two suits filed, one should be the original suit which has already been decided and a suit which is filed subsequent to the first.
• The subject matter of the previous suit should be identical to the subject of the suit in action, either actually or constructively.
• Parties of two suits i.e. the former and the subsequent should be the same.
• The Previous suit, basis of which a party would claim the doctrine, its verdict should have been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.
• Parties in both the suits should have been litigating under the same title.
• The doctrine of Res Judicata cannot be applied on Interlocutory orders as these orders are meant to provide interim relief to the party claiming it, there is no finality to such an order and it can be changed by an application of the opposing party.
• The doctrine cannot be claimed when new laws regarding the same cause of action or issue of law have come into force, new laws would accordingly bring several benefits to the aggrieved parties and are hence do not get impeded under the purview of Section 11.

To look into the applicability of the doctrine of Res Judicata, we first look at the case of Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh. This case is known to have given a broader scope to the applicability of the doctrine, giving it universal application. In this case, the petitioners in the High court of Allahabad had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Upon thorough interpretation of the statute, this petition was inherently dismissed with costs.

The petitioners then filed independent writ petitions under article 32 of the Constitution, in the Supreme Court. It was stated by the Apex Court that there was no change in the subject matter of the petition which was filed under Article 226 in the High court and subsequently filed under Article 32 of the Supreme court. The petition was based on the same grounds raised in the previous petition and directed against the same statute; hence it was decided that the decision made by the High court regarding the petition under Article 226 serves as a bar to a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution and comes under the purview of Res Judicata.[7]

Furthermore, In the case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Ors vs Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy, in the judgement delivered by Justice Shah, a comprehensive view was undertaken regarding the scope and applicability of the doctrine in regards to matters involving unlike causes of actions. J. Shah stated that. "A previous decision on a matter in issue is a composite decision: the decision of law cannot be dissociated from the decision on facts on which the right is founded.

A decision on an issue of law will be as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, if the cause of action of the subsequent Proceeding be the same as in the previous proceeding, but not when the cause of action is different, nor when the law has since the earlier decision been altered by a competent authority, nor when the decision relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the earlier proceeding, nor when the earlier decision declares valid a transaction which is prohibited by law." Thus, a wider definition via this judgement was attributed to the Doctrine of Res Judicata, and accordingly also listed the exceptions where the doctrine cannot be claimed as a Right in law." (Khan n.d.)

The doctrine of constructive res judicata has been incorporated in Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It states all such matters that ought to have been made a ground of defence or attached to a suit but were omitted by a court of competent jurisdiction during proceedings, will also be deemed to have been directly or substantially in issue in such a suit. If a party fails to raise a reasonable ground of defence or attack during the proceedings, then such an issue in law is presumed to have been decided against the defaulting party in the subsequent suit.

As regards to the applicability of Res Judicata in cases filed in public interest, The court in the case of State of Karnataka & Anr v. All India Organisation & Ors, stated that in a public interest litigation, the petitioner is representative of the public and their rights as a whole, and not an aggrieved individual claiming their own rights, in such a scenario the law bars parties or members of the public from bringing similar or related issues and causes of actions, especially after these issues have already been litigated upon and decided in previous cases of public interest litigation. Thus, the doctrine of Res Judicata is also applicable on public interest litigations, involving a similar cause of action and issue in law.

Criticism Of The Doctrine:
The Doctrine of Res Judicata as we have seen above plays a vital role in bringing an end to endless lawsuits which involve same causes of actions or issues mixed in facts and law. However, this is only applicable when the appeals procedure of the same suit so filed has been completed. This in turn serves as loophole in the framework of this Doctrine as the appeals procedure can take several years to litigate upon a case. There are many instances, especially in India where a court case is dragged on for decades until a decision is reached. By then, the aggrieved parties have been through enough harassment which the Doctrine of Res Judicata is meant to alleviate.

While it is undeniable that sometimes an erroneous interpretation can be done by a competent court having jurisdiction, and it is important in such cases for the higher courts to do judicial review, However the need for reviewing the entirety of a judgement and then striking it down is a prolonged process. The Bench of the Appeal court can instead, apply the principle of Res Judicata to a few of the provisions that are not repugnant to the erroneous interpretation done by the lower court. This in turn would reduce significantly the time it would take to litigate upon and reach the conclusion of a proceeding. Secondly, the Principle of Res Judicata is only applied upon the main questions which were evaluated and litigated upon in the previous proceedings, however if a party were to raise the preliminary questions regarding the same proceedings, the binding effect of the doctrine would not apply.

Conclusion
Thus, the doctrine of Res Judicata serves a vital role in the framework of a Legal System. The Doctrine as aforementioned is used by Courts to bring a finality to the verdict made by a court of competent jurisdiction so as to bring an end to the endless loop of lawsuits that can be filed by aggrieved parties claiming similar rights on grounds of similar causes of actions.

Tracing its origins to Roman Law, the doctrine has served in various contexts of Civil as well as Criminal Law and its flexibility and continued significance is testamentary to its ability to adapt to shifting legal contexts. The Doctrine is widely applicable upon a number of legal issues, some being writ petitions, tax cases, criminal cases and public interest litigations. However, the doctrine also faces its drawbacks, namely how its applicability is only possible after a conclusion in the proceedings is reached in all the court of appeals, which leads to due process, and secondly, there are criticisms regarding the scope of issues the doctrine can apply to as well as the narrow scope of exceptions which can be claimed by the opposing party in a lawsuit.

Nonetheless the Doctrine of Res Judicata despite its drawbacks has played a significant role in reducing the harassment which is caused to parties involved in a lawsuit and the confusion it creates to the lawmakers, thus, the doctrine which has been in place for centuries, playing a significant role in dispensing and the administration of justice, continues to do so, even in current legal contexts.

End Notes:

1. Satyadhyan Ghosal And Others vs Sm. Deorajin Debi 1960
2. Satyadhyan Ghosal And Others vs Sm. Deorajin Debi 1960
3. Meaning, Concept and Historical Background of Doctrine of Res Judicata as contained in Section 11 of CPC n.d.
4. Meaning, Concept and Historical Background of Doctrine of Res Judicata as contained in Section 11 of CPC n.d.
5. Meaning, Concept and Historical Background of Doctrine of Res Judicata as contained in Section 11 of CPC n.d.
6. Meaning, Concept and Historical Background of Doctrine of Res Judicata as contained in Section 11 of CPC n.d.
7. Khan n.d.