Res Judicata is an expression which has been advanced from a Latin proverb, which means the thing has been judged, which means thereby that the issue before the court has already been chosen by another court, between similar parties. Therefore, the court will dismiss the case before it as being pointless. Res Judicata as an idea is applicable both in the case of Civil just as Criminal legal framework.

The term is additionally used to mean to 'bar re-litigation of such cases between similar parties, which is different between the two legal frameworks. When the last judgment has been reported in a lawsuit, the resulting judges who are gone up against with a suit that is indistinguishable from or generously equivalent to the previous one would apply the Res Judicata doctrine to preserve the impact of the primary judgment.

This is to prevent shamefulness to the parties of a case as far as anyone knows completed, yet maybe for the most part to maintain a strategic distance from superfluous misuse of resources and season of the Judicial System. Also, accordingly, a similar case can't be taken up again either in the equivalent or in the distinctive Court of India. This is simply to keep them from duplicating decisions, so an overarching plaintiff may not recuperate damages from the defendant twice for a similar injury.

Introduction
Res judicata is a plea mentioned under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a doctrine applied to offer finality to a list in unique or appellate proceedings. The doctrine in substance implies that an issue or a point chose and having accomplished finality, ought not to be permitted to be re-opened and re-unsettled over once more.

The meaning of res is everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject matter or status and res judicata means a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment 

All civilized legal frameworks have acknowledged the doctrine of res judicata. Under Roman Law, a defendant could successfully contest a suit filed by a plaintiff on the plea of  ex caption res judicata. It was said, one suit and one decision are enough for any single dispute.

The doctrine of res judicata have their foundations on the accompanying three maxims:

• Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa – no man should be vexed twice for the same cause;
• Interest republican ut sit finis lithium – it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation;
• Res judicata pro veritate occipital – a judicial decision must be accepted as correct.

The doctrine of res judicata is founded on the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience. The doctrine applies to all civil and criminal proceedings and equally to all quasi-judicial proceedings before tribunals. Section 11 of the Code is pertinent to both the parties to a suit and not against the defendant alone. The principle of res judicata is furtherance against the court and is a mixed question of the fact and law and has to be specifically pleaded. 

The doctrine of Res Judicata in countries that have a common law legal framework is much smaller in scope than in common law countries. As indicated by the word reference signifying, 'Res Judicata' signifies a case or suit including a specific issue between at least two parties previously chose by a court. From that point, if both of the parties move toward a similar court for the mediation of a similar issue, the suit will be struck by the law of res judicator.

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure manages this idea. It epitomizes the doctrine of Res Judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of a judgment, regarding the focuses chose both of fact, or law, or fact and law, in each ensuing suit between similar parties. It sanctions that once a matter is at last chosen by a competent court; no gathering can be allowed to reopen it in ensuing litigation. Without such a rule, there will be no limit to litigation and the parties would be put to steady difficulty, badgering, and costs.

The pre-imperatives which are fundamental for Res Judicata are:

1. There should be the last judgment;
2. The judgment should be on the merits;
3. The claims should be something similar in the first and second suits;
4. The parties in the subsequent action should be equivalent to those in the first or host been represented by a gathering to the prior action.
    

The provisions of Section 11 are not in the least comprehensive even though it has an exceptionally wide and augmented adequacy. The section doesn't influence the jurisdiction of the Court however works as a standard to the trial of the suit or issue, if the matter in the suit was straightforwardly and considerably in issue (lastly chose) in the past suit between similar parties litigating under a similar title in a Court, at that point they are not competent for example they become banned to attempt the resulting suit in which such issue has been raised.

Along these lines, this teaching of Res Judicata is a basic idea dependent on open policy and private interest. It is imagined in the bigger public interest, which requires that each litigation should conclude. It, along these lines, applies to civil suits, execution proceedings, arbitration proceedings, taxation matters, writ petitions, authoritative orders, interim orders, criminal proceedings, and so on Standard litigation being a party or asserting under a party of a previous suit can't maintain a strategic distance from the pertinence of section 11 of C.P.C. as it is required besides on the ground of fraud or plot all things considered.

The onus of proof lies on the party depending on the theory of Res Judicata. The provisions of section 11 of C.P.C. are not an index but rather compulsory. The judgment in a previous suit can be stayed away from exclusively by taking recourse to section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act on the ground of fraud or agreement.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Das Gupta in Satyadhan Ghosal v. Deorajan Deb said that 'the rule of Res Judicata depends on the need of offering irrevocability to the legal choices'.

Exceptions to the doctrine of Res Judicata.
The Supreme Court has set down 3 exceptions to the rule of Res Judicata.

1. When judgment is passed without jurisdiction.
   
   1. When the matter includes an unadulterated question of law.
   2. When the judgment has been gotten by committing fraud on the Court.

Fatima Bibi Ahmed Patel v. the State of Gujarat (2008) 6 SCC 789 – Res Judicata principle not applicable to criminal cases. 

Decision Without Merit
In-State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Jagdish Sharan Agrawal & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 689, the Apex Court held that where the matter has not been decided on merit earlier, the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable.

Lack Of Jurisdiction
The doctrine would not apply if the judgment is by a Court lacking inherent jurisdiction or when the judgment is non-speaking.

Fraud
The rule of res judicata would not matter if the decree has been gotten by rehearsing misrepresentation or fraud on the court, or where the procedures had been taken all together under an extraordinary Statute. All the more in this way, every finding in the prior judgment would not work as res judicata. Just an issue straightforwardly and considerably, chose in the prior suit, would work as res judicata.

Where the decision has not been given on merit, it would not work for the situation against the judgment and decree of the court underneath the allure is forthcoming in the re-appraising court, the judgment of the court beneath can't be held to be conclusive, and the discoveries recorded in that would not work as res judicata.

In the case of Jallur Venkata Seshayya v. Thadviconda Koteswara Rao, a suit was filed in the Court to declare certain temples public temples and for setting aside alienation of the endowed property by the manager thereof. A comparable suite was excused by the Court two years prior and the plaintiffs here fought that it was gross negligence concerning the plaintiffs (of the past suit) and consequently the doctrine of Res Judicata ought not to be applied.

In any case, the Privy Council said that finding of gross negligence by the trial court was a long way from a finding of intentional suppression of the documents, which would sum, to the need of genuine or collusion for the plaintiffs in the earlier suit. There is no evidence in the suit setting up one or the other need of true blue of collusion to plaintiffs as res judicata.

In the case of Beliram and Brothers v. Chaudari Mohammed Afzal, it was held that where a minors suit was not brought by the guardian of the minors bona fide but was brought in collusion with the defendants and the suit was a fictitious suit, a decree obtained therein is one obtained by fraud and collusion within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 44 and does not operate Res Judicata.

The principle of Res Judicata in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, s. 11 is modified by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 44 and the principles will not apply if any of the three grounds mentioned in s. 44 exists. General principles may not be applied in a way making Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, s. 11 nugatory.

In the case of Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was held that the writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court are not inter-party disputes and have been raised by way of public interest litigation and the controversy before the court is as to whether for social safety and for creating a hazardless environment for the people to live in, mining in the area must be permitted or stopped.

Regardless of whether it is said that there was the last order, in a debate of this kind it is hard to engage the plea of Res Judicata. The Court was of the view that leaving the inquiry open for assessment, later on, would prompt a superfluous assortment of proceedings and would be against the interests of the general public. It is a lot and legitimate as likewise in the interest of the gatherings that the whole inquiry is considered at this stage.

Without a doubt, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has come into power with impact from 19 November 1986. Under this enactment, power got vested in the Central Government to take measures to secure and improve the environment. These writ petitions were documented as ahead of schedule as 1983 over three years before the enactment came into power.

The standard of Res Judicata doesn't matter carefully to public interest litigations. The procedural laws are not completely pertinent to public interest litigation cases. Where the earlier public interest identifies with illicit mining, ensuing public interest litigation to secure the environment isn't banned.

In Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal, the Supreme Court was directly called upon to decide the question. The apex court held that the principle would apply to public interest litigation provided it was a bona fide litigation.

Criticisms
Res Judicata doesn't restrict the advances cycle, which is viewed as a direct expansion of a similar lawsuit as the suit goes up (and back down) the appellate court stepping stool. Requests are viewed as the suitable way by which to challenge a judgment instead of attempting to begin another preliminary. When the offers cycle is depleted or postponed, Res Judicata will apply even to a judgment that is in opposition to the law.

There are restricted exceptions to Res Judicata that permit involved with assault the legitimacy of the first judgment, even outside of claims. These exceptions—as a rule, called guarantee assaults—are regularly founded on procedural or jurisdictional issues, put together not concerning the shrewdness of the previous court's choice however its position or on the ability of the prior court to give that choice. A security assault is bound to be accessible (and to succeed) in judicial frameworks with different jurisdictions

for example, under federal governments, or when a domestic court is approached to implement or perceive the judgment of an unfamiliar court. Also, in issues including fair treatment, cases that give off an impression of being Res Judicata might be re-contested. A model would be the foundation of an option to guide. Individuals who have had freedom removed (i.e., detained) might be permitted to be re-attempted with a guide as an issue of reasonableness.

Conclusion
The Doctrine of Res Judicata can be perceived as something which restrains either gathering to move the clock back during the pendency of the proceedings. The stretch out of Res Judicata is incredibly wide and it incorporates a ton of things which even incorporates Public Interest Litigations. This doctrine is material even external to the Code of Civil Procedure and covers plenty of territories that are identified with society and individuals. The degree and the degree have enlarged with the progression of time and the Supreme Court has extended the territories with its decisions.