Brief History and Origin of Res Judicata

Res Judicata Pro Veritate Accipitur is the full Latin maxim which has, over the years, shrunk to mere Res Judicata.

The concept of Res Judicata originates from the English Common Law system and is rooted in the overarching principles of judicial economy, consistency, and finality. It was initially integrated into the Code of Civil Procedure and subsequently adopted in its entirety by the Indian legal system. Its applicability extended from the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to Administrative Law and, over time, other statutes and laws began to incorporate the concept of Res Judicata within their frameworks. Background Many scholars agree that the rule of Res Judicata traces its origins to Roman law. However, one of its earliest expressions in the common law system can be found in the 1776 case of The Duchess of Kingston [(1776) 20 Howell's State Trials 355].

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.

This principle is broad in its scope and lays the foundation for the doctrine of Res Judicata.
 

Two Aspects of Res Judicata

1. Bar by (former) judgment: A judgment in any action extinguishes the cause of action, preventing subsequent suits based on the same cause. The emphasis here is on the identity of causes of action.
2. Conclusiveness of judgment (bar by verdict): Once an issue has been decided, that decision is conclusive, barring the same issue from being re-litigated in subsequent suits. This rule focuses on the identity of issues rather than causes of action.
    

Illustration
Consider the following scenario:

1. A and B are involved in a car accident. A sues B for damages due to personal injuries but fails because the court finds contributory negligence on A’s part. Based on the principle of Bar by Judgment, A cannot sue B again for personal injuries.
2. If B later sues A for damages to his car, the earlier finding of contributory negligence would be binding in the new suit under the principle of Bar by Verdict. Although the causes of action differ, the determination of an issue between the same parties remains binding in subsequent litigation.

Res Judicata in Indian Statutes (1802–1908)

For reasons that are not entirely clear, the rule of Bar by Judgment was incorporated into Indian law.

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.

Although this regulation appeared to refer only to Bar by Judgment, by 1850, Indian courts were applying it to encompass both causes of action and issues.
In 1850, Macpherson articulated the rule of Res Judicata as follows:

A civil court cannot entertain any cause that, based on a prior decree or court record, appears to have been heard and determined by a former judge or a superintendent of a competent court. This includes cases that, under the rules against splitting claims, ought to have been included in a previous suit.

Macpherson further explained that a cause could be considered previously determined if:

• The subject matter of the former suit was the same.
• The parties or their real and effective interests were the same.
• The issues were identical.
• The proceedings were taken for the same purpose.
• The jurisdiction was competent.
• The claim had been adjudicated by a decree or order, either recognizing or negating a right.

From this explanation, it is evident that the Indian conception of Res Judicata by 1850 included both Bar by Judgment and Bar by Verdict.

The Evolution of Res Judicata in Indian Civil Procedure

The established legal position underwent significant change in 1859 with the introduction of the first Civil Procedure Code. Section 2 of the 1859 Code provided:

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.

This provision codified only one aspect of the doctrine of Res Judicata—Bar by Judgment. Shortly after its enactment, the judiciary recognized the absence of the other essential element of Res Judicata, namely Bar by Verdict.

Post-1859 Developments

Following 1859, numerous cases arose where, despite distinct causes of action, issues previously decided by a competent Court were brought up again. Section 2 appeared to necessitate rehearing these issues. However, in several instances, courts circumvented this by holding that, notwithstanding the restrictive language of Section 2, a broader "general law" of Res Judicata applied in India, incorporating Bar by Verdict.

Revision in 1877

In 1877, under the guidance of the Law Commission, the Code of Civil Procedure was significantly revised and re-enacted. The principle of Res Judicata was reformulated and incorporated as Section 13 in the new Code. Whitley Stokes, a prominent member of the Law Commission, noted that the language of Section 13 was inspired by Livingston's renowned Code of Evidence for Louisiana.

No Court shall try any Suit or issue in which the matter, directly and substantially in issue, has been heard and finally decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction, in a former Suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title.

This formulation marked a clear departure from the 1859 Code. The term "cause of action" was replaced with a focus on Suits or issues previously decided. Consequently, the 1877 Code effectively combined the concepts of Bar by Judgment and Bar by Verdict under the doctrine of Res Judicata.

Changes in 1882

An additional change in 1882 was the explicit requirement that, for a judgment to operate as Res Judicata, the Court delivering it must have had concurrent jurisdiction with the subsequent Court.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Over the next two decades, Section 13 underwent several modifications. In 1908, the Code of Civil Procedure was thoroughly revised and re-enacted in its current form. The language of Section 13 was retained verbatim in Section 11 of the 1908 Code, which states:

11. Res judicata—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.

The Doctrine of Res Judicata

Section 11 embodies the doctrine of Res Judicata, ensuring the conclusiveness of a judgment regarding points of fact, law, or both, in subsequent litigation between the same parties. It stipulates that once a matter is finally decided by a competent Court, it cannot be reopened in future proceedings. This doctrine prevents endless litigation, sparing parties from unnecessary hardship, harassment, and expenses.

Res Judicata, understood as "a matter adjudged," is based on the principle that litigation must reach finality. [M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 408, Paras 12–15]. Rooted in justice, equity, and good conscience [Lal Chand v. Radha Krishan, (1977) 2 SCC 88, Para 19], it establishes that rights or facts decided by a competent Court in earlier proceedings are conclusive and binding on the parties and those in legal or estate privity [Duchess of Kingston's Case, (1776) 20 St Tr 355].

Significantly, the earlier proceeding need not be a Suit, even if the subsequent one is a Civil Suit. [State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala, (2014) 12 SCC 696].

Fundamentally, there are three legal maxims that form the underlying basis of this doctrine:

1. Nemo Debet Lis Vaxari Pro Eadem Causa which means that no man should be tormented twice for the same cause,
2. Interest Republicae Ut Sit Finis Litium meaning that it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to a litigation and
3. Res Judicata Pro Veritate Occipitur which means that a Judicial decision must be accepted as correct.

Res Judicata in Indian Law

In India, the doctrine of Res Judicata is codified under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Key Judicial Pronouncements

1. Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen, 1953 SCR 154: One of the earliest efforts to outline the essentials for invoking Res Judicata.
2. Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorijin Debi, (1960) 3 SCR 590: Landmark ruling stating that a matter decided between two parties in a suit or proceeding becomes final and cannot be reopened in subsequent litigation.
3. Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1962) 1 SCR 574: Summarized the key features of Res Judicata, highlighting its application to matters directly and substantially in issue.
4. Lonankutty v. Thomman, (1976) 3 SCC 528: Defined "former suit" as one decided earlier, even if not filed first.

Application of Res Judicata

The principle applies to:

• Matters of fact: Parties are bound by decisions in subsequent litigation regardless of correctness.
• Mixed questions of law and fact: Such issues cannot be re-litigated between the same parties (Union of India v. Reliance Industries Ltd., (2015) 10 SCC 213).
• Issues directly or substantially in issue in an earlier suit (Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, (1966) 3 SCR 300).

Exceptions

• An earlier suit for possession does not bar a subsequent suit for partition if causes of action differ (Nagabhushanammal v. C. Chandikeswaralingam, (2016) 4 SCC 434).
• Erroneous rulings on pure questions of law do not attract Res Judicata (SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd, (2019) 12 SCC 210).

Constructive Res Judicata

As per Explanation IV of Section 11, constructive Res Judicata applies to issues that might and ought to have been raised in a former suit.

• The Supreme Court extended this to writ proceedings (State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain, (1977) 2 SCC 806, Shiv Chander More v. Lt. Governor, (2014) 11 SCC 744).
• Even where liberty to pursue remedies is granted, constructive Res Judicata can still apply (Asgar v. Mohan Varma, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 131).

Key Considerations

• Reliefs not expressly granted are deemed refused (Yashwant Sinha v. CBI, (2020) 2 SCC 338).
• The doctrine applies only to disputes involving the same parties or their representatives (K.S. Varghese v. St. Peter's & St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church, (2017) 15 SCC 333).
• Explanation VIII extends applicability to decisions by courts of exclusive, concurrent, or limited jurisdiction (Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair).

Finality of Decisions

A matter is considered finally decided even if the earlier suit was resolved:

• Ex parte
• Due to failure to produce evidence
• By decree or award

However, dismissals on technical grounds do not invoke Res Judicata (City Municipal Council Bhalki v. Gurappa, (2016) 2 SCC 200).

Exceptions to the Rule of Res Judicata

In Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar [(2008) 9 SCC 54], the Supreme Court outlined three exceptions to the application of the doctrine of res judicata:

• When a judgment is delivered by a court lacking jurisdiction (Union of India v. Pramod Gupta [(2005) 12 SCC 1]);
• When the matter involves a pure question of law; and
• When the judgment is procured through fraud on the court.

Observations in Subsequent Cases

In Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty [(2018) 16 SCC 228], the Court noted that except for the three exceptions—an erroneous decision in the earlier suit, an error due to failure to apply a statutory provision, or a differing legal issue—the bar of res judicata would apply in subsequent proceedings if all other conditions are met.

It is evident that an earlier suit operates as res judicata only on matters of fact and not on wrongly decided pure questions of law (Satyendra Kumar v. Raj Nath Dubey [(2016) 14 SCC 49]).

In Krishna Hare Gaur v. Vinod Kumar Tyagi [(2015) 11 SCC 355], the Court held that when fraud is committed on the court, the appointment becomes a nullity, and res judicata is inapplicable. Referring to Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy [(2010) 8 SCC 383], it was reiterated that appointments violating statutory rules are nullities, rendering res judicata inapplicable.

Similarly, in Asharfilal v. Koili [(1995) 4 SCC 163], the Supreme Court observed that gross negligence could amount to fraud and remanded the matter to the consolidation authorities to frame an issue regarding fraud or collusion and decide accordingly.

Practical Implications

Res judicata is a powerful defensive tool. The Indian legal system, plagued by frivolous and repetitive claims, should leverage this doctrine to curtail excessive and unnecessary litigation, conserving judicial time. Courts must distinguish genuine claims from baseless ones. If a plaint discloses a sham cause of action, it should be summarily rejected after a preliminary examination (T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467]).

Scope of Application

The doctrine applies to writs, labor disputes, consolidation proceedings, and similar cases. It also applies to co-defendants and co-plaintiffs who are essential parties to a case but does not extend to habeas corpus matters or successive taxation years.

The issue of res judicata can be raised as a preliminary question in subsequent proceedings to avoid unnecessary trials. Frivolous and vexatious litigation should be penalized with heavy costs, as it constitutes an abuse of the court’s process. Once a matter is decided and attains finality, no party should be permitted a second attempt at the same issue. This doctrine effectively balances public interest with private justice, ensuring that parties cannot revisit the same dispute once resolved.

Conclusion
The fundamental principle behind the doctrine of Res Judicata is to ensure fair and natural justice by preventing one party from repeatedly filing multiple lawsuits either for the sake of justice or to harass the other party.

The scope of Res Judicata was clearly defined in the case of Gulam Abbas v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 1 SCC 71, where the Code outlines the rules of conclusiveness as evidence or bars the re-litigation of an issue previously adjudicated in a suit, provided the matter is directly and substantially the same. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not create any rights or interests in the property, but serves as a bar to re-try the same issue.

The Res Judicata principle is recognized for its broad application, rooted in the overarching idea of finality in judicial decisions. Its scope extends beyond the confines of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and applies more generally.

Thus, the purpose of Res Judicata is to allow courts to dispense justice and prevent the continuation of multiple suits on the same issue, regardless of their stage in the legal process. This ensures that once a matter is decided, it is dismissed from the court's jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of other courts at the same level.

The doctrine of Res Judicata essentially restricts either party from re-opening the case during the pendency of proceedings. Its reach is extensive, covering areas such as Public Interest Litigation, and its application extends beyond the Code of Civil Procedure. Over time, the scope of this doctrine has expanded, with the Supreme Court broadening its application through various judgments.

Written By: Dinesh Singh Chauhan, Advocate, J&K High Court of Judicature, Jammu.
Email: [email protected], [email protected]