res judicata - part 1

1.nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no man should be vexed for the same cause);

2.interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to a litigation); and

3. res judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct).

Supreme Court of India

Lal Chand (Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors vs Radha Kishan on 17 December, 1976

In the circumstances, the present suit is also barred by the principle of res judicata. The fact that s. 11 of the Code of Civil Proce- dure cannot apply on its terms, the earlier proceeding before the competent authority not being a suit, is no answer to the extension Of the principle underlying-that section to the instant case. Section 11, it is long since settled, is not exhaustive and the principle which motivates that section can be extended to cases which do not fall strictly within the letter of the law. The issues involved in the two proceedings are identical, those issues arise as between the same parties and thirdly, the issue now sought to be raised was decided finally by a competent quasi- judicial tribunal. The principle of res judicata is con- ceived in the larger public interest which requires that all litigation must, sooner than later, come to an end. The principle is also founded on equity, justice and good con- science which require that a party which has once succeeded on an issue should not be permitted to be harassed by a multiplicity of proceedings involving determination of the same issue.

Supreme Court of India

Jaswant Singh & Anr vs The Custodian Of Evacuee ... on 7 May, 1985

It is well settled that in order to decide the question whether a subsequent proceeding is barred by res judicata it is necessary to examine the question with reference to the (i) forum or the competence of the Court, (ii) parties and their representatives, (iii) matters in issue, (iv) matters which ought to have been made ground for defence or attack in the former suit and (v) the final decision. In order that a defence of res judicata may succeed it is necessary to show that not only the cause of action was the same but also that the plaintiff had an opportunity of getting the relief which he is now seeking , in the former proceedings. The test is whether the claim in the subsequent suit or proceedings is in fact founded upon the same cause of action which was the foundation of the former suit or proceedings.

Supreme Court of India

Sheodan Singh vs Smt. Daryao Kunwar on 14 January, 1966

We may at the out set refer to the relevant provisions of s. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure insofar as they are material for present purposes. They read thus :

"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. "Explanation I-The expression 'former suit' shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. It is not necessary to refer to the other Explanations.

A plain reading of s. 11 shows that to constitute a matter res judicata, the following conditions must be satisfied, namely-

(i)The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit;

(ii)The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between, parties under whom they or any of them claim;

(iii)The parties must have litigated under the same title in the former suit;

(iv)The court which decided the former suit must be a court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised; and

(v)The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the Court in the first suit. Further Explanation I shows that it is not the date on which the suit is filed that matters but the date on which the suit is decided, so that even if a suit was filed later, it will be a former suit if it has been decided earlier.