RES JUDICATA – MORATORIUM ON TRIAL OF SECOND SUIT ON VARIANT MATTER
Introduction
The doctrine of Res Judicata is a foundational principle in civil law that bars the trial of a subsequent suit on the same matter which has already been adjudicated by a competent court. It seeks to ensure the finality of judgments and prevent multiplicity of litigation.
Definition
Res Judicata literally means “a matter already judged.” The principle is embodied under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It provides 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.”
Judicial Interpretation
The Supreme Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal & Ors. v. Deorajin Debi (AIR 1960 SC 941) emphasized the significance of this doctrine, observing:
“In the absence of such a rule, there would be no end to litigation and parties would be put to constant trouble, harassment, and expenses.”
Foundational Maxims of Res Judicata
This doctrine is based on three core Roman legal maxims:
Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa – No person should be vexed twice for the same cause.
Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium – It is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation.
Res judicata pro veritate accipitur – A judicial decision must be accepted as correct and binding.
Exceptions to the Doctrine
Despite its wide application, Res Judicata is not absolute. Certain exceptions have been recognized under Indian jurisprudence:
Writ of Habeas Corpus
The principle does not apply to habeas corpus petitions. This exception was upheld by the Supreme Court in Daryao & Ors. v. State of U.P. (AIR 1961 SC 1457), where it was held that the writ of habeas corpus is governed by a separate set of principles due to its fundamental nature involving liberty.Taxation Matters
Tax liability is assessed on a year-to-year basis. Since each assessment year is distinct, the doctrine does not apply to taxation matters, making it a dynamic and evolving area.Compromise or Consent Decrees
A decision arrived at through mutual consent or compromise between parties does not constitute a judicial decision on merits. Therefore, such decrees are not considered “heard and finally decided” as required under Section 11 CPC.Interlocutory Orders
The doctrine does not extend to matters decided via interlocutory orders, as they do not conclusively determine the rights of parties. This was clarified in Pandurang Ramchandra Mandalik v. Shantabai (AIR 1989 SC 2240), where the Supreme Court stated that both a full hearing and final adjudication are essential for Res Judicata to apply.
Conclusion
The doctrine of Res Judicata ensures judicial economy and certainty in legal proceedings. Once a matter has been finally adjudicated, it attains finality and cannot be reopened between the same parties. However, its application must be balanced with principles of justice and must not obstruct legitimate claims, especially where legal grounds or rights evolve over time. The exceptions carved out by Indian courts affirm this balance between finality and fairness.
kindly share this link https://shataxiamicuslex.blogspot.com/2019/09/blog-post.html
Over all good but may i know that why the res judicata does not apply on habeas Corpus except other writs.
ReplyDeletePlea of res- judicata should not violate any fundamental right of the citizen, and for the writ of habeas corpus, doctrine of constructive res-judicata would not apply.
Delete👍👍
ReplyDeleteNice 👍👌
ReplyDelete