Section 11: Res judicata

Code of Civil Procedure Section 10. Stay of suit.

Section 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.

Explanation I.—The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to a suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.

Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.

Explanation III.—The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.

Explanation IV.—Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.

Explanation V.—Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.

Explanation VI.—Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.

¹[Explanation VII.—The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.

Explanation VIII. —An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.]

Note 1: Ins. by Act 104 of 1976, s. 6 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).

Part in Red is original provisions from CPC reproduced here for reference.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 12. Bar to further suit.

Simplified Explanation:

Section 11 contains the rule of conclusiveness of the judgment which is based partly on the maxim of Roman jurisprudence “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” (it concerns the State that there be an end to law suits) and partly on the maxim “nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” (no man should be vexed twice over for the same cause).

The section does not affect the jurisdiction of the court but operates as a bar to the trial of the suit or issue, if the matter in the suit was directly and substantially in issue (and finally decided) in the previous suit between the same parties litigating under the same title in a court, competent to try the subsequent suit in which such issue has been raised.

Even an erroneous decision on a question of law attracts the doctrine of res judicata between the parties to it. The correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon the question whether or not it operates as res judicata. 

It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. “The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact-situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.”

Even otherwise, a different view on the interpretation of the law may be possible but the same should not be accepted in case it has the effect of unsettling transactions which had been entered into on the basis of those decisions, as reopening past and closed transactions or settled titles all over would stand jeopardised and this would create a chaotic situation which may bring instability in the society.

If the issue has been already decided on merit between the same parties in an earlier litigation, it cannot be decided again. Explanation (4) thereof, also provides for constructive res judicata which has to be read like the provisions of Order II Rule 2. It also applies to the proceedings in the Suit.

Even an erroneous decision on a question of law attracts the doctrine of res judicata between the parties to it. The correctness of a judicial decision has no bearing upon the question whether or not it operates as res judicata. In such an eventuality, re-agitation of an issue is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. 

It would be impermissible to permit any party to raise an issue inter se where such an issue under the very Act has been decided in an early proceeding. Even if res judicata in its strict sense may not apply but its principle would be applicable. Parties who are disputing, if they were parties in an early proceeding under the very Act raising the same issue would be stopped from raising such an issue both on the principle of estoppel and constructive res judicata.

In certain conditions res judicata also binds the co-defendants. The principle of res judicata has been held to bind co-defendants if the relief given by the earlier decision involved the determination of an issue between co-defendants. There are following three conditions which govern the applicability of res judicata:

1. There must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned

2. It must be necessary to decide this conflict to give the plaintiff the relief claimed

3. The question between the defendants must be finally decided. 

The principle of res judicata would not apply if the decree has been obtained by practicing misrepresentation or fraud on the court, or where the proceedings had been taken all together under a special Statute. More so, every finding in the earlier judgment would not operate as res judicata. Only an issue “directly” and “substantially”, decided in the earlier suit, would operate as res judicata. Where the decision has not been given on merit, it would not operate in case against the judgment and decree of the court below the appeal is pending in the appellate court, the judgment of the court below cannot be held to be final, and the findings recorded therein would not operate as res judicata.

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

If the matter has not been decided on merit earlier, the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable. 

The object of Explanation IV is to compel the party to take all the grounds of attack or defence in one and the same suit.

Some stray observations by the Trial Judge, in an earlier case on the question which was not directly and substantially in issue – would not bar the subsequent suit.

The principle analogous to Res Judicata or constructive Res judicata does not apply to criminal cases. Where the entire proceedings have been initiated illegally and without jurisdiction, in such a case – even the principle of Res judicata (wherever applicable) would not apply.

The Supreme Court laid down 3 exceptions to the rule of Res Judicata

(i) When judgment is passed without jurisdiction

(ii) When matter involves a pure question of law.

(iii) When judgment has been obtained by committing fraud on the Court.

For judgement replications please read this blog.

Reference:

1) http://www.nja.nic.in/16%20CPC.pdf

Stay of suit

Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.

10. Stay of suit.—No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in ¹[India] have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of ¹[India] established or continued by ²[the Central Government ³***.] and having like jurisdiction, or before ⁴[the Supreme Court].

Explanation.—The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in ¹[India] from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.

Note 1: Subs. by Act 2 of 1951, s. 3, for “the States”.

Note 2: Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for “the G.G. in C.”

Note 3: The words “or the Crown Representative” omitted by the A.O. 1948.

Note 4: Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “His Majesty in Council”.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 

Courts to try all civil suits unless barred

 Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.

PART I: SUITS IN GENERAL: JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS AND Res Judicata

9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.—The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

¹[Explanation I].—A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.

²[Explanation I].—For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.]

Note 1: For instance of such direction, see Calcutta Gazette, 1910, Pt. I, p. 814.

Note 2: Explanation renumbered as Explanation I thereof by Act 104 of 1976, s. 5 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).

Code of Civil Procedure Section 

Presidency Small Cause Courts

Code of Civil Procedure Section 7. Provincial Small Cause Courts.

8. Presidency Small Cause Courts.—Save as provided in sections 24, 38 to 41, 75, clauses (a), (b) and (c), 76,¹[77, 157 and 158], and by the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (15 of 1882), the provisions in the body of this Code shall not extend to any suit or proceeding in any Court of Small Causes established in the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay : ²[Provided that—

(1) the High Courts of Judicature at Fort William, Madras and Bombay, as the case may be, may from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct3 that any such provisions not inconsistent with the express provisions of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (15 of 1882), and with such modifications and adaptations as may be specified in the notification, shall extend to suits or proceedings or any class of suits or proceedings in such Court.

(2) All rules heretofore made by any of the said High Courts under section 9 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (15 of 1882) shall be deemed to have been validly made.]

Note 1: Subs. by Act 104 of 1976, s. 4, for “77 and 155 to 158” (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).

Note 2: Added by Act 1 of 1914, s. 2.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 

Provincial Small Cause Courts

Code of Civil Procedure Section 6. Pecuniary jurisdiction.

7. Provincial Small Cause Courts.—The following provisions shall not extend to Courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887(9 of 1887) ¹[or under the Berar Small Cause Courts Law, 1905], or to Courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes ²[under the said Act or Law], ³[or to Courts in ⁴[any part of India to which the said Act does not extend] exercising a corresponding jurisdiction that is to say.—

(a) so much of the body of the Code as relates to—

(i) suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes;

(ii) the execution of decrees in such suits;

(iii) the execution of decrees against immovable property; and

Note 1: Ins. by Act 4 of 1941, s. 2 and the Third Schedule.

Note 2: Subs. by s. 2 and the Third Schedule, ibid., for “under that Act”.

Note 3: Ins. by Act 2 of 1951, s. 5.

Note 4: Subs. by the Adaptation of Laws (No. 2) Order, 1956, for “Part B States”.

(b) the following sections, that is to say,— section 9, sections 91 and 92, sections 94 and 95 ⁵[so far as they authorise or relate to]—

(i) orders for the attachment of immovable property,

(ii) injunctions,

(iii) the appointment of a receiver of immovable property, or

(iv) the interlocutory orders to in clause (e) of section 94], and sections 96 to 112 and 115.

Note 5: Subs. by Act 1 of 1926, s. 3, for “so far as they relate to injections and interlocutory orders”.

Note: Code of Civil Procedure Section 

Section 6 Pecuniary jurisdiction

Code of Civil Procedure Section 5. Application of the Code to Revenue Courts.

6. Pecuniary jurisdiction.—Save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any Court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction.

Note: Code of Civil Procedure 

Jurisdiction of courts and venue of suits

Jurisdiction means the authority by which a court has to decide matters that are brought before it for adjudication. The limit of this authority is imposed by charter, statute or commission. If no such limit is imposed or defined that the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited.

Limitation of jurisdiction of civil court is basically four kinds:

[1] Jurisdiction over the subject matter- to try certain matters by certain court is limited by statute (Ex. Small cause court- suit for money due under promissory note or a suit for price of work done)

[2] Place of suing or territorial jurisdiction – A territorial limit of jurisdiction for each court is fixed by Government.

[3] Jurisdiction over persons – All person of whatever nationality are subject to the jurisdiction of the country except foreign state.

[4] Pecuniary jurisdiction depending on pecuniary value of suit –There is no pecuniary jurisdiction of high court and district court.

Jurisdiction may be further classified: [a] Original jurisdiction [b] Appellate jurisdiction

Criminal and appellate jurisdiction- Supreme Court, High Courts and District courts have both original and appellate jurisdiction in various matter.

Application of CPC to Revenue Courts

Code of Civil Procedure: Section 4. Savings.

5. Application of the Code to Revenue Courts.—(1) Where any Revenue Courts are governed by the provisions of this Code in those matters of procedure upon which any special enactment applicable to them is silent, the State Government ¹*** may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that any portions of those provisions which are not expressly made applicable by this Code shall not apply to those Courts, or shall only apply to them with such modifications as the State Government ²* * * may prescribe.

Note 1: The words “with the previous sanction of the G.G. in C”, omitted by Act 38 of 1920, s. 2 and the First Schedule Pt. I.

Note 2: The words “with the sanction aforesaid” omitted by s. 2 and the First Schedule., Pt. I, ibid.

(2) “Revenue Court” in sub-section (1) means a Court having jurisdiction under any local law to entertain suits or other proceedings relating to the rent, revenue or profits of land used for agricultural purposes, but does not include a Civil Court having original jurisdiction under this Code to try such suits or proceedings as being suits or proceedings of a civil nature.

Note: Code of Civil Procedure