Principle of res judicata

The principle "ex captio res judicata" is came from english laws which means one suit and one judgement for single dispute. Where in India, this is covered under Section 11 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 which is to prevent the duplication of suit.

Which provides that once a matter is finally decided by a competent court, no party can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. In Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi, it was held that the principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving finality to judicial decision. Further, in the absence of such a rule, there will be no end to litigation and the parties would be put in constant trouble, harassment, and expenses.
The doctrine is based on three maxims:-
➢ No man should be vexed twice for the same cause.
➢ It is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation.
➢ A judicial decision must be accepted as correct.
Conditions for application of Res Judicata (Section 11 of CPC,1908)
There must be two suits – One former & other subsequent: Former suit means previously decided suit. It doesn’t matter when the suit was instituted. What it matters is when the decision came from the court.

i. Matter directly and substantially in the subsequent suit:
It means that matter must be directly related to the suit. It must not be collateral or incidental to
the issue.
For example, ‘A’ and her mother filed a suit against her father’s brother for claiming a share
in the property of her mother. The question of marriage expenses was not directly or substantially in issue. The claim of partition was dismissed by the court. However, the principle of res judicata doesn’t bar ‘A’ to file a subsequent suit for her marriage expenses as the matter was not directly in issue in the former suit.

ii. There must be same parties: The parties to a suit are those whose name appears on the record of the suit at the time of the decision. A party who withdraws or whose name is stuck off is not considered as a party. Further, a minor not represented by the guardian for the suit is not a party to the suit. Where any decision made by the court in favor of or against any party then it not only binds the party but also their successors too.

For an instance, a suit filed by any person for recovery of possession and ownership title and
the court decided in his favor, then his legal heirs also considered as the parties after his death
and res judicata will apply.

iii. There must be the same title: ‘Same title’ means ‘in same capacity’. It has been held in the number of cases that ‘a verdict against a man suing in one capacity will not stop him when he sues in another capacity’.

For example, ‘A’ file suit against ‘B’ as the owner of property and suit is dismissed by the
court. Later on, he filed a suit to claim his right as mortgagee will not bar him to institute a
subsequent case. So where the suit is filed in a different capacity then it is considered to be a
valid suit and doesn’t bar by this doctrine.

iv. The decision must be made by the competent court: The Former decision must be given by competent court having jurisdiction on the case. If the case is decided by the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter then res judicata will not apply.

Posted using Partiko Android