We have already discussed Res judicata in Code of Civil Procedure. Here are some judgments about the doctrine of Res Judicata.
Judgment:
1) Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair (2004) 3 SCC 277: “Res judicata pro veritate accipitur” (a thing adjudged must be taken as truth) is the full maxim which has, over the years, shrunk to mere “res judicata”.
2) Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors 2014 (1) SCALE 79: The doctrine 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 uno et eadem causa” (no man should be vexed twice over for the same cause).
3) Shah Shivraj Gopalji v. ED, Appakadh Ayiassa Bi & Ors., AIR 1949 PC 302; and Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee & Ors., AIR 1953 SC 65: 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.
4) In Smt. Raj Lakshmi Dasi & Ors. v. Banamali Sen & Ors., AIR 1953 SC 33 and Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramnandan Singh, AIR 1916 PC 78: Apex Court while dealing with the doctrine of res judicata referred to and relied upon the judgment in Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramnandan Singh, AIR 1916 PC 78 wherein it had been observed as u: “…….. the rule of res judicata, while founded on ancient precedents, is dictated by a wisdom which is for all time….. Though the rule of the Code may be traced to an English source, it embodies a doctrine in no way opposed to the spirit of the law as expounded by the Hindu commentators. Vijnanesvara and Nilakantha include the plea of a former judgment among those allowed by law, each citing for this purpose the text of Katyayana, who describes the plea thus: 'If a person though defeated at law, sue again, he should be answered, ‘‘you were defeated formerly". This is called the plea of former judgment.’... And so the application of the rule by the courts in India should be influenced by no technical considerations of form, but by matter of substance within the limits allowed by law’’
5) Satyadhyan Ghosal & Ors. v. Smt. Deorajin Debi & Anr., AIR 1960 SC 941: The apex Court explained the scope of principle of res-judicata observing as under: “7. The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies as between past litigation and future litigation, When a matter - whether on a question of fact or a question of law - has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again. This principle of res judicata is embodied in relation to suits in S. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but even where S. 11 does not apply, the principle of res judicata has been applied by courts for the purpose of achieving finality in litigation. The result of this is that the original court as well as any higher court must in any future litigation proceed on the basis that the previous decision was correct.”
Also the
Supreme Court considered the applicability of the doctrine in the proceedings
at different stages in the same Suit and held as under:- “The principle of res
judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decision.
What it says is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be
adjudged again. Primarily, it applies as between past litigation and future
litigation....... This principle of res judicata is embodied in relation
to Suits in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but even where Section
11 does not apply, the principle of res judicata has been applied by
courts for the purpose of achieving finality in litigation...... The principle
of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same
litigation to this extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher
court, having, at an earlier stage, decided a matter in one way, will not allow
the parties to re-agitate the matter again at the subsequent stage of the same
proceedings.”
6) Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. & Anr. v. Janapada Sabha Chhindwara & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1013: The Constitution Bench of the apex court considered the issue of res judicata applicable in writ jurisdiction and held as under: “…Therefore, there can be no doubt that the general principle of res judicata applies to writ petitions filed under Article 32 or Article 226. It is necessary to emphasise that the application of the doctrine of res judicata to the petitions filed under Art. 32 does not in any way impair or affect the content of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of India. It only seeks to regulate the manner in which the said rights could be successfully asserted and vindicated in courts of law.”
7) Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade & Anr., (1999) 5 SCC 590: The apex Court has explained the scope of finality of the judgment of this Court observing as under: “One important consideration of public policy is that the decision pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction should be final, unless they are modified or reversed by the appellate authority and other principle that no one should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice ever because such a procedure should be contrary to consideration of fair play and justice. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it.”
8) The State of Punjab v. Bua Das Kaushal, AIR 1971 SC 1676: A three-Judge Bench of the apex court considered the issue and came to the conclusion that if necessary facts were present in the mind of the parties and had gone into by the court, in such a fact-situation, absence of specific plea in written statement and framing of specific issue of res judicata by the court is immaterial.
9) Union of India v. Nanak Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1370 and Gulabchand Chhotalal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1153: A similar view has been re-iterated by the apex court observing as under: “The apex Court in Gulabchand Chhotalal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1153 observed that the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not exhaustive with respect to all earlier decision operating as res judicata between the same parties on the same matter in controversy in a subsequent regular suit, and on the general principle of res judicata, any previous decision on a matter in controversy, decided after full contest or after affording fair opportunity to the parties to prove their case by a Court competent to decide it, will operate as res judicata in a subsequent regular suit. It is not necessary that the Court deciding the matter formerly be competent to decide the subsequent suit or that the former proceeding and the subsequent suit have the same subject-matter. There is no good reason to preclude, such decisions on matters in controversy in writ proceedings under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution from operating as res judicata in subsequent regular suits on the same matters in controversy between the same parties and thus to give limited effect to the principle of the finality of decisions after full contest.”
10) Laxman Pandya v. State of U.P., (2011) 14 SCC 94: It was held that dismissal of earlier writ petitions would not affect adjudication of present writ petitions because both were based on different causes. In earlier writ petitions, they neither had the opportunity nor could they claim that acquisition will be deemed to have lapsed due to non-compliance with Section 11-A. Thus, dismissal or writ petitions filed in 1982 for default or otherwise did not operate as bar to the filing of fresh writ petitions in 2000. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of res judicata is applicable where earlier the Suit had been decided. Though the doctrine may not be attracted in different proceedings at different stages in the same Suit but the principle enshrined therein is, undoubtedly, applicable.
11) Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993: The Apex Court observed as under:- “...... though Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly contemplates the existence of two Suits and the findings in the first being res judicata in the later Suit, it is well established that the principle underlying it is equally applicable to the case of decision rendered at successive stages of the same Suit or proceeding. But where the principle of res judicata is involved in the case at the different stages of proceedings in the same Suit, the nature of the proceedings, the scope of the inquiry which the adjective law provides for decision being reached as well as the specific provisions made on matters touching decision are some of the material and relevant factors to be considered before the principle is held applicable.”
12) Vijayabai v. Shriram Tukaram, AIR 1999 SC 451: 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.
13) Munnibibi v. Triloki Nath, AIR 1931 PC 114: Three conditions were laid down:
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.
These rules govern the applicability of res judicata on the co-defendants.
14) Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 281: The Supreme Court examined the issue of res judicata observing that doctrine applied to give finality to “lis” in original or appellate proceedings. The issue once decided should not be allowed to be reopened and re-agitated twice over. The literal meaning of “res” is “everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject- matter or status” and “res judicata” literally means “a matter adjudged a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgments”.
15) Forward Construction Co. & Ors. v. Prabhat Mandal, Andheri & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 391: The Supreme Court explained the scope of constructive res judicata as envisaged in Explanation IV to Section 11 of CPC and observed that the High Court was not right in holding that the earlier judgment would not operate as res judicata as one of the grounds taken in the present petition was conspicuous by its absence in the earlier petition. The Court held as under:
“Explanation
IV to S.11, CPC provides that 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. An adjudication
is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to
every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have
had it decided as incidental to or essentially connected with the subject
matter of the litigation and every matter coming within the legitimate purview
of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim or defence. The
principle underlying Explanation IV is that where the parties have had an opportunity
of controverting a matter that should be taken to be the same thing as if the
matter had been actually controverted and decided. It is true that where a
matter has been constructively in issue it cannot be said to have been actually
heard and decided. It could only be deemed to have been heard and decided. The
first reason, therefore, has absolutely no force.”
16) State of Karnataka v. All India Manufactures Organisation & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1846: The Court held that doctrine also applies in case of a PIL, provided the earlier case was a genuine and a bona fide litigation as the judgment in the earlier case would be a judgment in rem. The doctrine of res judicata is not merely a matter of procedure but a doctrine evolved by the Courts in the larger public interest. Section 11 merely recognizes the said doctrine which is basically based on public policy.
The
Supreme Court also explained the principle enshrined in Explanation IV to
Section 11 observing that it is for preventing the abuse of the process of the
Court through re-agitation of settled issues merely because the petitioners
drew semantic distinctions from the earlier case. If the issues that had been
raised ought to have been raised in the previous case, it would amount to abuse
of process of the Court and, thus, cannot be allowed.
17) Deewan Singh & Ors. v. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 528: The Apex Court examined a case where in the first round of litigation the Supreme Court had categorically opined that the disputed property was a Jain temple. In subsequent litigation, the Apex Court held that it was not permissible for the State to contend that it was Hindu temple as the finding in the earlier petition attained finality on this issue.
18) Tata Industries Ltd. v. Grasim Industries Ltd. (2008) 10 SCC 187: This case deals with jurisdiction to appoint the arbitrator u/s 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Supreme Court rejected the argument raised before the High Court and held – Question of locus standi not having been raised before the High Court did not survive – it amounted to an abandonment of the issue and cannot be raised before the Supreme Court. An issue which ought to have been raised earlier cannot be raised by the party in successive round of litigation.
19) Fatima Bibi Ahmed Patel v. State of Gujarat (2008) 6 SCC 789: Supreme Court held that 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.
20) Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar (2008) 9 SCC 54: 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.
Reference:
