Doctrine of Res Judicata

 

The word doctrine is to be understood with legal concept as legal doctrines. Previously it was considered as the opinions of Catholic Church. But today the idea of doctrines have changed, it has evolved with the establishment of legal principles by different constitutions and courts. These are established legal principles by competent authority and are followed for long period for administration of justice.[1] One such doctrine which is adopted in India and is been evolved under English Jurisprudence is Doctrine of Res Judicata. The real legal maxim was ‘res judicata pro veritate accipitur’[2] which over the years converted to the word ‘res judicata’. The literal meaning of Res Judicata is ‘the matters adjourned’ or in simpler terms it means that no person can plead in the same court, with the same pair and with the same facts and prayer. But if we dug deep into the meaning of the word res judicata we would know that it has a broader meaning, in respect of issues, in respect of finality of a judgment, in respect of applicability of alternative remedy. It has a wider scope as compared to its meaning. It is based on the principle that no person can be punished twice for the same offence. It acts as a watch guard that no person can take advantage of the law and ask for the same remedy twice. People try to file a case again is due to claiming the relief or compensation again or to defame a person. This article deals in understanding the meaning, applicability and extent of doctrine of res judicata as per Indian perspective through judicial decisions.

Background

This doctrine is based on 3 roman principles:

1. Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa, i.e. no person should be vexed for the same cause.
2. Interest republicae ut sit finis litium, interest of state that there should be an end to the litigation.
3. Re judicata pro veritate occipitur, judicial decision must be accepted as correct.

It is mentioned under section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. We could find the origin of this concept in Hindu as well as Muslim law. It is related to administration law.

Cases

Janardan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad,

In this 5 judge bench case it was said that principle of res judicata is not applicable in criminal cases but there exist a principle of finality of judgments, which applies to both criminal and civil cases.

Narhari v. Shankar, 1950[3]

In the above mentioned case an appeal was made against the decision of the High Court where High court allowed one appeal of one of the plaintiff and rejected the other. In this case J. R.S. Naik said, “The question of res judicata arises only when there are two suits. Even when there are two suits, it has been held that a decision given simultaneously cannot be a decision in the former suit. When there is only one suit, the question of res judicata does not arise at all.”

This would mean that where a party files a case twice then there would be consideration to claim the doctrine of res judicata but here the was no second case there was only one case so the doctrine of res judicata cannot be invoked.

 

State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala

In this Supreme Court held that doctrine of res judicata binds the parties and not the legislature.

 

Devilal Modi v. STO, (1965)[4]

Principle of res judicata is not applicable to cases where the case is gain filled in the same court with the same pair but with different merits every time.

For eg: A files a case on B for matter C in High Court and A won the case. A can file a new case against B in High Court in matter D.

To support the case of Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. v. Janapada Sabha, Chnindwara[5] was relied upon. As in the said case it happened that the petitioner challenged the tax for different periods imposed upon him on different cases.

 

Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy[6], 

In this case, Supreme Court held certain rules to define acts constituting the invocation of doctrine of res judicata:

1. It was held that doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure and not of legislative.
2. A decision of a competent Court on a matter related to issues or mixture of issues and laws may be res judicata in another proceeding between the same parties. For e.g. the case based on contempt of court based purely on facts will be barred by the principle of res judicata.
3. Where the law is altered since the earlier decision, the earlier decision will not operate as res judicata between the same parties
4. A question of pure question of law unrelated to the right of the parties to a previous suit, is not res judicata in the subsequent suit.
5. A question relating to the jurisdiction of a Court cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of the Court.
6. In determining the application of the rule of res judicata the Court is not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the earlier judgment.

 

Daryao v. State of U.P[7].,

In this case The Supreme Court held that if the High Court is moved under Article 226 and the order is dismissed the Supreme Court cannot be moved under Article 32 as there is a bar of doctrine of res judicata. By this the court also issued certain guidelines for rule of res judicata:

1. The decision of the High court will be binding on the parties.
2. Parties will not be open to challenge the same under Article 32.
3. If the case id dismissed by high court by another alternate remedy available then the Supreme Court can be moved under Article 32.
4. If the petition is dismissed in limine without creating a speaking order such dismissal cannot be treated as creating a bar of res judicata.
5. If a petition is dismissed as withdrawn then it cannot act as a bar to the subsequent petition under Article 32.

Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India,[8]

In this case it was held that the writ of habeas corpus is an exception to the principle of doctrine of res judicata.

 

Summarization of rules laid down by court

A person cannot approach the same court, with the same issue, with the same pair and asking for the same remedy. This doctrine is not applicable in criminal cases. It lays down a procedural aspect not the aspect related to law and the aspect related to law cannot be a bar. A person can either move the High Court or Supreme Court for the matter and if the matter is dismissed by the High Court Article 32 cannot be invoked expect the cases mentioned above in the case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy[9]. Writ of habeas corpus is an exception to the doctrine. After hearing so many cases the main question lies is it’s whose duty to inform that the verdict on the case is given? It is the duty of the parties to make it into notice of the court the earlier judgment and if the court fails to apply the doctrine of res judicata and the case is filed the earlier judgment will be considered.[10]

 

Conclusion

There are many doctrines that help in interpretation of laws and help in delivering justice. Doctrine of res judicata helps in baring the repetition of the punishment on a person or a person gaining any unlawful advantage at the loss of the other party as a loop. This doctrine was first added in the Code of Civil Procedure and adopted from English Laws. Though it is said that this doctrine does not applies to criminal cases but protection from double jeopardy is given under the constitution. It has been given broader scope and application through judicial interpretation in various cases. But it has its own limitations as well.

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Bolla, Dr., Mohan. (2017). The Doctrinaire Trident Testing Constitutionality of the Laws. SSRN Electronic Journal. 10.2139/ssrn.3090334.

 

[2] Kevin M. Clermont, “Res Judicata as Requisite for Justice,” 68 Rutgers University Law Review (2016).

 

[3] SCR 754 : AIR 1953 SC 419.

 

[4] 1 SCR 686 : AIR 1965 SC 1150 : (1965) 16 STC 303.

 

[5] (1963) Supp I SCR 172.

 

[6] (1970) 1 SCC 613.

[7] (1962) 1 SCR 574 : AIR 1961 SC 1457.

 

 

[8] (1967) 2 SCR 271 : AIR 1967 SC 1335 : 1967 Cri LJ 1204.

 

[9] (1970) 1 SCC 613.

 

[10] Gulam Abbas v. State of UP. (1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases 71.