Avoiding the Trap of Res Judicata: A Practitioner's Guide ...
Res Judicata - Author - Jayant Bhatt.pdf
5
2/10/2015 Res Judicata Author Jayant Bhatt http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rju.htm 1/5 Legal Service India.com Res Judicata Chat with us (2 PM 9 PM IST) Jayant Bhatt Vth Year,Amity Law School, New Delhi Search On: Laws in India Search Introduction RES JUDICATA means "a thing decided" in Latin. It is a common law doctrine meant to bar relitigation of cases between the same parties in Court. Once a final judgment has been handed down in a lawsuit subsequent judges who are confronted with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one will apply res judicata to preserve the effect of the first judgment. This is to prevent injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents them from multiplying judgments, so a prevailing plaintiff could not recover damages from the defendant twice for the same injury. Res judicata includes two related concepts: claim preclusion, and issue preclusion ﴾also called collateral estoppel﴿, though sometimes res judicata is used more narrowly to mean only claim preclusion. Claim preclusion focuses on barring a suit from being brought again on a legal cause of action that has already been finally decided between the parties. Issue preclusion bars the relitigation of factual issues that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier claim. It is often difficult to determine which, if either, of these apply to later lawsuits that are seemingly related, because many causes of action can apply to the same factual situation and vice versa. The scope of an earlier judgment is probably the most difficult question that judges must resolve in applying res judicata. Sometimes merely part of a subsequent lawsuit will be affected, such as a single claim being struck from a complaint, or a single factual issue being removed from reconsideration in the new trial. Res judicata does not restrict the appeals process, which is considered a linear extension of the same lawsuit as it travels up ﴾and back down﴿ the appellate court ladder. Appeals are considered the appropriate manner by which to challenge a judgment rather than trying to start a new trial, and once the appeals process is exhausted or waived, res judicata will apply even to a judgment that is contrary to law. However, there are limited exceptions to res judicata that allow a party to attack the validity of the original judgment, even outside of appeals. These exceptionsusually called collateral attacksare typically based on procedural or jurisdictional issues, based not on the wisdom of the earlier court's decision but its authority or competence to issue it. A collateral attack is more likely to be available ﴾and to succeed﴿ in judicial systems with multiple jurisdictions, such as under federal governments, or when a domestic court is asked to enforce or recognize the judgment of a foreign court. When a subsequent court fails to apply res judicata and renders a contradictory verdict on the same claim or issue, if a third court is faced with the same case, it will likely apply a "last in time" rule, giving effect only to the later judgment, even though the result came out differently the second time. This situation is not unheard of, as it is typically the responsibility of the parties to the suit to bring the earlier case to the judge's attention, and the judge must decide how broadly to apply it, or whether to recognize it in the first place. Public Interest Litigation, in simple words, means, litigation filed in a court of law, for the protection of "Public Interest", such as pollution, Terrorism, Road safety, constructional hazards etc.Public Interest Litigation is not defined in any statute or in any act. It has been interpreted by judges to consider the intent of public at large. Although, the main and only focus of such litigation is only "Public Interest" there are various areas where a Public Interest Litigation can be filed. For e.g. # Violation of basic human rights of the poor # Content or conduct of government policy # Compel municipal authorities to perform a public duty. # Violation of religious rights or other basic fundamental rights. Res Judicata As Defined Under Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure embodies the doctrine of res judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of a judgement, as to the points decided either of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties. It enacts that once a matter is finally decided by a competent court, no party can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. In the absence of such a rule there will be no end to litigation and the parties would be put to constant trouble, harassment and expenses. The doctrine has been explained in the simplest possible manner by Das Gupta, J., ? the principle of Res Judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to the judicial decisions. What it says is that once a res 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 canvas the matter again. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines Res Judicata as: 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 the 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 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. ibibo ads
-
Upload
mainan-ray -
Category
Documents
-
view
15 -
download
6
Transcript of Res Judicata - Author - Jayant Bhatt.pdf
-
2/10/2015 ResJudicataAuthorJayantBhatt
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rju.htm 1/5
Legal ServiceIndia.com
ResJudicataChatwithus(2PM9PMIST)
JayantBhattVthYear,AmityLawSchool,NewDelhiSearchOn: LawsinIndia
Search
IntroductionRESJUDICATAmeans"athingdecided"inLatin.ItisacommonlawdoctrinemeanttobarrelitigationofcasesbetweenthesamepartiesinCourt.Onceafinaljudgmenthasbeenhandeddowninalawsuitsubsequentjudgeswhoareconfrontedwithasuitthatisidenticaltoorsubstantiallythesameastheearlieronewillapplyresjudicatatopreservetheeffectofthefirstjudgment.Thisistopreventinjusticetothepartiesofacasesupposedlyfinished,butperhapsmostlytoavoidunnecessarywasteofresourcesinthecourtsystem.Resjudicatadoesnotmerelypreventfuturejudgmentsfromcontradictingearlierones,butalsopreventsthemfrommultiplyingjudgments,soaprevailingplaintiffcouldnotrecoverdamagesfromthedefendanttwiceforthesameinjury.
Resjudicataincludestworelatedconcepts:claimpreclusion,andissuepreclusionalsocalledcollateralestoppel,thoughsometimesresjudicataisusedmorenarrowlytomeanonlyclaimpreclusion.Claimpreclusionfocusesonbarringasuitfrombeingbroughtagainonalegalcauseofactionthathasalreadybeenfinallydecidedbetweentheparties.Issuepreclusionbarstherelitigationoffactualissuesthathavealreadybeennecessarilydeterminedbyajudgeorjuryaspartofanearlierclaim.Itisoftendifficulttodeterminewhich,ifeither,oftheseapplytolaterlawsuitsthatareseeminglyrelated,becausemanycausesofactioncanapplytothesamefactualsituationandviceversa.Thescopeofanearlierjudgmentisprobablythemostdifficultquestionthatjudgesmustresolveinapplyingresjudicata.Sometimesmerelypartofasubsequentlawsuitwillbeaffected,suchasasingleclaimbeingstruckfromacomplaint,orasinglefactualissuebeingremovedfromreconsiderationinthenewtrial.
Resjudicatadoesnotrestricttheappealsprocess,whichisconsideredalinearextensionofthesamelawsuitasittravelsupandbackdowntheappellatecourtladder.Appealsareconsideredtheappropriatemannerbywhichtochallengeajudgmentratherthantryingtostartanewtrial,andoncetheappealsprocessisexhaustedorwaived,resjudicatawillapplyeventoajudgmentthatiscontrarytolaw.
However,therearelimitedexceptionstoresjudicatathatallowapartytoattackthevalidityoftheoriginaljudgment,evenoutsideofappeals.Theseexceptionsusuallycalledcollateralattacksaretypicallybasedonproceduralorjurisdictionalissues,basednotonthewisdomoftheearliercourt'sdecisionbutitsauthorityorcompetencetoissueit.Acollateralattackismorelikelytobeavailableandtosucceedinjudicialsystemswithmultiplejurisdictions,suchasunderfederalgovernments,orwhenadomesticcourtisaskedtoenforceorrecognizethejudgmentofaforeigncourt.
Whenasubsequentcourtfailstoapplyresjudicataandrendersacontradictoryverdictonthesameclaimorissue,ifathirdcourtisfacedwiththesamecase,itwilllikelyapplya"lastintime"rule,givingeffectonlytothelaterjudgment,eventhoughtheresultcameoutdifferentlythesecondtime.Thissituationisnotunheardof,asitistypicallytheresponsibilityofthepartiestothesuittobringtheearliercasetothejudge'sattention,andthejudgemustdecidehowbroadlytoapplyit,orwhethertorecognizeitinthefirstplace.PublicInterestLitigation,insimplewords,means,litigationfiledinacourtoflaw,fortheprotectionof"PublicInterest",suchaspollution,Terrorism,Roadsafety,constructionalhazardsetc.PublicInterestLitigationisnotdefinedinanystatuteorinanyact.Ithasbeeninterpretedbyjudgestoconsidertheintentofpublicatlarge.Although,themainandonlyfocusofsuchlitigationisonly"PublicInterest"therearevariousareaswhereaPublicInterestLitigationcanbefiled.Fore.g.
#Violationofbasichumanrightsofthepoor#Contentorconductofgovernmentpolicy#Compelmunicipalauthoritiestoperformapublicduty.#Violationofreligiousrightsorotherbasicfundamentalrights.
ResJudicataAsDefinedUnderCodeOfCivilProcedure,1908Section11oftheCodeofCivilProcedureembodiesthedoctrineofresjudicataortheruleofconclusivenessofajudgement,astothepointsdecidedeitheroffact,oroflaw,oroffactandlaw,ineverysubsequentsuitbetweenthesameparties.Itenactsthatonceamatterisfinallydecidedbyacompetentcourt,nopartycanbepermittedtoreopenitinasubsequentlitigation.Intheabsenceofsucharuletherewillbenoendtolitigationandthepartieswouldbeputtoconstanttrouble,harassmentandexpenses.ThedoctrinehasbeenexplainedinthesimplestpossiblemannerbyDasGupta,J.,?theprincipleofResJudicataisbasedontheneedofgivingafinalitytothejudicialdecisions.Whatitsaysisthatoncearesjudicata,itshallnotbeadjudgedagain.Primarilyitappliesasbetweenpastlitigationandfuturelitigation.Whenamatterwhetheronaquestionoffactoraquestionoflawhasbeendecidedbetweentwopartiesinonesuitorproceedingandthedecisionisfinal,eitherbecausenoappealwastakentoahighercourtorbecausetheappealwasdismissed,ornoappeallies,neitherpartywillbeallowedinafuturesuitorproceedingbetweenthesamepartiestocanvasthematteragain.
Section11oftheCodeofCivilProcedure,1908definesResJudicataas:NoCourtshalltryanysuitorissueinwhichthematterdirectlyandsubstantiallyinissuehasbeendirectlyandsubstantiallyinissueinaformersuitbetweenthesameparties,orbetweenpartiesunderwhomtheyoranyofthemclaim,litigatingunderthesametitle,inaCourtcompetenttotrysuchsubsequentsuitorthesuitinwhichsuchissuehasbeensubsequentlyraised,andhasbeenheardandfinallydecidedbysuchCourt.
ExplanationI:Theexpression"formersuit"shalldenoteasuitwhichhasbeendecidedpriortothesuitinquestionwhetherornotitwasinstitutedpriorthereto.
ExplanationII.Forthepurposesofthissection,thecompetenceofaCourtshallbedeterminedirrespectiveofanyprovisionsastoarightofappealfromthedecisionofsuchCourt.
ExplanationIII.Thematterabovereferredtomustintheformersuithavebeenallegedbyonepartyandeitherdeniedoradmitted,expresslyorimpliedly,bytheother.
ExplanationIV.Anymatterwhichmightandoughttohavebeenmadegroundofdefenceorattackinsuchformersuitshallbedeemedtohavebeenamatterdirectlyandsubstantiallyinissueinsuchsuit.
ExplanationV.Anyreliefclaimedintheplaint,whichisnotexpresslygrantedbythedecree,shall,forthepurposesofthissection,bedeemedtohavebeenrefused.
ExplanationVI.Wherepersonslitigatebonafideinrespectofpublicrightorofaprivaterightclaimedincommonforthemselvesandothers,allpersonsinterestedinsuchrightshall,forthepurposesofthissection,bedeemedtoclaimunderthepersonssolitigating.
ibiboads
-
2/10/2015 ResJudicataAuthorJayantBhatt
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rju.htm 2/5
ExplanationVII.Theprovisionsofthissectionshallapplytoaproceedingfortheexecutionofadecreeandreferenceinthissectiontoanysuit,issueorformersuitshallbeconstruedasreferences,respectively,toproceedingsfortheexecutionofthedecree,questionarisinginsuchproceedingandaformerproceedingfortheexecutionofthatdecree.
ExplanationVIII.AnissueheardandfinallydecidedbyaCourtoflimitedjurisdiction,competenttodecidesuchissue,shalloperateasresjudicatainassubsequentsuit,notwithstandingthatsuchCourtoflimitedjurisdictionwasnotcompetenttotrysuchsubsequentsuitorthesuitinwhichsuchissuehasbeensubsequentlyraised.Thedoctrineofresjudicataisbasedonthreemaxims
aNemodebetlisvaxariproeademcausanomanshouldbevexedtwiceforthesamecausebInterestrepublicaeutsitfinislitiumitisintheinterestofthestatethatthereshouldbeanendtoalitigationandcRejudicataproveritateoccipiturajudicialdecisionmustbeacceptedascorrect
AsobservedbySirLawrenceJenkins,theruleofresjudicata,whilefoundedonaccountofprecedent,isdictatedbyawisdomisforalltimes
ReferringtotheopinionoftheJudgesexpressedin1776intheDuchesofKingston'sCase2Smith'sL.C.13thedn.644,645.towhichreferencehasbeeninvariablymadeinmostofthecasesbytheIndiancourts.Itwassaidinthatcase:
"Fromthevarietyofcasesrelativetojudgmentsbeinggiveninevidenceincivilsuits,thesetwodeductionsseemtofollowasgenerallytrue:firstthejudgmentofaCourtofconcurrentjurisdiction,directlyuponthepoints,isasaplea,abar,orasevidenceconclusive,betweenthesameparties,uponthesamematter,directlyinquestioninanotherCourtsecondlythatthejudgmentofaCourtofexclusivejurisdiction,directlyuponthepoint,is,inlikemanner,conclusiveuponthesamematter,betweenthesameparties,comingincidentallyinquestioninanotherCourt,foradifferentpurpose.Butneitherthejudgmentofaconcurrentorexclusivejurisdictionisevidenceofanymatterwhichcamecollaterallyinquestion,thoughwithintheirjurisdiction,norofanymatterincidentallycognizable,norofanymattertobeinferredbyargumentfromthejudgment."
Section11containstheruleofconclusivenessofthejudgmentwhichisbasedpartlyonthemaximofRomanJurisprudence"Interestreipublicaeutsitfinishlitium"itconcernstheStatethattherebeanendtolawsuitsandpartlyonthemaxim"Nemodebetlisvexariprounaateademcausa"nomanshouldbevexedtwiceoverforthesamecause.ThesectiondoesnotaffectthejurisdictionoftheCourtbutoperatesasapartothetrialofthesuitorissue,ifthematterinthesuitwasdirectlyandsubstantiallyinissueandfinallydecidedintheprevioussuitbetweenthesamepartieslitigatingunderthesametitleinaCourt,competenttotrythesubsequentsuitinwhichsuchissuehasbeenraised.
InCORPUSJURISvol.34,p.743,ithasbeenstated:ResJudicataisaruleofuniversallawpervadingeverywellregulatedsystemofjurisprudenceandisputupontwogrounds,embodiedinvariousmaximsofthecommonlawtheone,publicpolicyandnecessity,whichmakesittotheinterestofthestatethatthereshouldbeanendtolitigationtheother,thehardshiptotheindividualthatheshouldnotbevexedtwiceforthesamecause.
Thus,thisdoctrineofresjudicataisafundamentalconceptbasedonpublicpolicyandprivateinterest.Itisconceivedinthelargerpublicinterest,whichrequiresthateverylitigationmustcometoanend.Ittherefor,appliestocivilsuits,executionproceedings,arbitrationproceedings,taxationmatters,writpetitions,administrativeorders,interimorders,criminalproceedings,etc.
Anordinarylitigationbeingapartyorclaimingunderapartyofaformersuitcannotavoidtheapplicabilityofsection11ofCPCasitismandatoryexceptonthegroundoffraudorcollusionasthecasemaybe.ResJudicatainfactmeansThingwhichhadbeenadjudgedtheessentialingredientsofwhicharetobeconsideredwhiledecidingwhetheraparticularjudgmentoperatedasresjudicataornotbepostulatedasfollows:#Matterwhichwasdirectlyandsubstantiallyinissueinformersuitmustbedirectlyandsubstantiallyissueinthesubsequentsuitalso.#Boththeformerandsubsequentsuitshouldhavebeenbetweenthepartiesorbetweenthepartieslitigatingundersometitles.#Theformersuitshouldhavebeendecidedbycompetentcourtwhichcantrysubsequentsuitalso.#Anymatter,whichmightandoughttohavebeenmadeagroundofdefenceorattackinsuchformersuitshallbedeemedtohavebeenamatterdirectlyandsubstantiallyinissueineachsuit.
Theonusofproofliesonthepartyrelyingonthetheoryofresjudicata.SECTION11OFCPCISMANDATORYTheprovisionsofsection11ofCPCarenotdirectorybutmandatory.Thejudgmentinaformersuitcanbeavoidedonlybytakingrecoursetosection44oftheIndianEvidenceActonthegroundoffraudorcollusion.Whereseveraldefendantsarethere,inasuitthecollusionofoneofthemaloneisnotenoughtoavoidtheoperationofruleofresjudicata.Grossnegligenceisdifferentfromfraudandcollusion.
Theprovisionsofsection11oftheCodearemandatoryandtheordinarylitigantwhoclaimsunderoneofthepartiestotheformersuitcanonlyavoiditsprovisionsbytakingadvantageofsection44oftheIndianEvidenceActwhichdefineswithprecisionthegroundsofsuchevidenceasfraudorcollusion.Itisnotforthecourttotreatnegligenceorgrossnegligenceasfraudorcollusionunlessfraudorcollusionistheproperinferencefromfacts.Otherfactorsinexceptiontosection11beingpresentmustbelitigatingbonafideandthefulfillmentofthisisnecessaryfortheapplicabilityofthesection.TheaboveratiodecidendiwaslaiddowninJallurVenkataSeshayyav.ThadvicondaKoteswaraRaoandOthers.Thisrepresentativesuitwasbroughtbysomepersonsonbehalfofpublicinterestfordeclaringcertaintemplespublictemplesandforsettingasidealienationofendowedpropertybythemanagerthereof.Asimilarsuitwasbroughtsomeyearsagobytwopersonsandthesuitwasdismissedonthegroundsthatthetempleswereprivatetemplesandthepropertyendowedtothetemplebeingprivateendowment,thealienationthereofwerevalid.Theplaintiffsadmittedthattheycouldbedeemedtobepersonsclaimingundertheplaintiffsinpriorsuitandtheissueinboththesuitswassame.
ItwascontendedhoweverbythemthatfindinginthepriorsuitcouldnotberesjudicataasagainsttheminasmuchastherewasgrossnegligenceonthepartoftheplaintiffsinthatsuitinnotproducingthedocumentsnecessaryforthedecisionofthesuitintheirfavourandinnotplacingtheirevidencebeforetheCourtandPrivyCouncilheldthatnocaseoffraudapartfromcollusionbeingsuggested,theplaintiffs,wereboundtoestablisheitherthatthedecreeinpriorsuitwasobtainedbycollusionbetweenthepartiesorthatthelitigationbytheplaintiffsinpriorsuitwasnotbonafide.Theplaintiffsbasedtheircaseentirelyoninferencestobedrawnfromallegedgrossnegligenceonthepartoftheplaintiffsinthepriorsuit.ThefindingofgrossnegligencebytheTrialCourtwasfarfromafindingofintentionalsuppressionofthedocumentswhichwouldamounttowantofbonafideorcollusiononthepartoftheplaintiffsinpriorsuit.Therebeingnoevidenceinthesuitestablishingeitherwantofbonafideofcollusiononthepartofplaintiffsasresjudicata.
InBeliram&BrothersandOthersv.ChaudariMohammedAfzalandOthersitwasheldthatwhereitisestablishedthattheminorssuitwasnotbroughtbytheguardianoftheminorsbonafidebutwasbroughtincollusionwiththedefendantsandthesuitwasafictitioussuit,adecreeobtainedthereinisoneobtainedbyfraudandcollusionwithinthemeaningofsection44oftheIndianEvidenceAct,anddoesnotoperateresjudicata.Theprincipleofresjudicatainsection11CPCismodifiedbysection44oftheIndianEvidenceAct,andtheprincipleswillnotapplyifanyofthethreegroundsmentionedinSection44exists.
Generalprinciplescannotbeappliedinawaymakingsection11CPCnugatory.InSarlaBalaDeviv.ShyamPrasadChatterjee,theeDivisionBenchofCalcuttaHighCourtheld:Itisundoubtedlytruethattheprinciplesofresjudicataapplytoproceedingsotherthansuitsincludingproceedingsinexecution.ItmustbetakenasheldbytheSupremeCourtthattheprinciplesofconstructiveresjudicataarealsoapplicabletoexecutionproceedings.Buttheconditionsofapplicabilityoftheprinciplesofresjudicataactualorconstructivecontainedinsection11CPCmustbecompliedwithinsuchcasesasfaraspossible.Itisnotthelawthatwhenacourtappliestheprinciplesanalogoustoresjudicatathatcourtcanoverridetheconditionsspecifiedinsection11CPC.
-
2/10/2015 ResJudicataAuthorJayantBhatt
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rju.htm 3/5
TheCalcuttaHighCourtinfactfollowedanearlierdecisionofthesamecourtinAbinashChandrav.MadhusudanMajumdarandanother,section11doesnotcodifyorcrystallizetheentirelawregardingthedoctrineresjudicata.Itdealswithsomeofthecircumstancesunderwhichapreviousdecisionwilloperateasresjudicatabutnotwithall.Wherecircumstancesotherthanprovidedforinsection11existsthegeneralprincipleunderlyingtheruleofresjudicatamaybeinvokedinpropercaseswithoutrecoursetotheprovisiontotheprovisionsofthatsection.Butobviouslyitdoesnotfollowthattheprovisionofsection11maybefloutedoroverriddenorthattheprohibitionsorreservationexpressorimpliedinthatsectionmaybeignoredbyreferencetogeneralprinciplesofresjudicatainacasetowhichsection11applies.
Thegeneralprinciplesofresjudicatacannotbeinvokedinacasewhenthecourtwhichtriedthefirstsuithadnojurisdictiontotrythesubsequentsuitinasmuchassection11isexplicitonthispointandhenceaformerdecisionbycourtofsmallcauseswillnotoperateresjuducata.ThedecisiononanissuebyacourtofinferiorjurisdictiondoesnotoperateasabartothetrialoftheissuebyacourtofsuperiorjurisdictioninasubsequentsuitbutthecorrectnessofthisviewisdoubtfulnowinviewoftheAmendingActof1976.
InthiscasethemajorityoftheirLordshipsofthesupremeCourtheldthattheprovisionsofsection11CPCarenotexhaustivewithrespecttoanearlierdecisionoperatingasresjudicatabetweenthesamepartiesonthesamematterincontroversyinasubsequentsuitandongeneralprinciplesofresjudicata,anypreviousdecisiononamatterofcontroversydecidedafterfullcontestorafteraffordingfairopportunitytothepartiestoprovetheircasebyacourtcompetenttodecideitwilloperateasresjudicatainasubsequentregularsuit.Thegeneralprovisionsofresjudicataarewiderthantheprovisionsofsection11CPCandalsoapplytocasesnotcomingwithinthefourcornersofthesectionbutifthecasefailswithinthetermsofsection11CPCconditionsofthesectionmustbestrictlycompliedwith.Thegeneralprinciplesofresjudicataareapplicablewherethepreviousdecisionshasnotbeengiveninacivilsuitthoughapleaofresjudicataisraisedinasubsequentcivilsuitbutwhereboththeproceedingsarecivilsuitsthegeneralprinciplesofresjudicatahavenoapplicationandthecasemustbeconfinedtothefourcornersofsection11CPC.
WherethecourtisdealingwithasuittheonlygroundonwhichresjudicatacanbeurgedagainstsuchasuitwouldbetheprovisionsofSection11CPCandnoother.ScopeoftheprincipleofresjudicataisnotconfinedtowhatiscontainedinSection11butofmoregeneralapplication.TheruleofresjudicataascontainedinSection11oftheCPChasnodoubtsometechnicalaspectsforinstancetheruleofconstructiveresjudicatamaybesaidtobetechnicalbutthebasisonwhichthesaidrulerestsisfoundedonconsiderationofpublicpolicy.ThedoctrineofresjudicataisadoctrineofwideimportandSection11ofCPCisnotexhaustiveofitandthereishighauthorityfortheviewthattheprincipleofresjudicatamayapplyapartfromthelimitedprovisionsofCPC.Section11isnotexhaustiveofthegeneralprinciplesofresjudicata.ItishoweverexhaustiveinrespectofthecaseswhichdirectlycomewithinitsambitinthosecasesifSection11doesnotstrictlyapplythecourtcannotinvokethegeneralprinciplesofresjudicata.TheprincipleofconclusivenessofjudgmentismuchwiderandisapartofthegeneralprinciplesofresjudicataandthoseprincipleshavebeenheldbyauthoritiestobegoodprinciplesapartfromtheprovisionsofCPC.Section11isnotexhaustiveofthecircumstancesinwhichanissuemayberesjudicata.Adecisioninordertoconstituteresjudicataneednotnecessarilyhavebeengiveninapriorsuit.TheprinciplewhichpreventsthesamecausebeingtwicelitigatedisofgeneralapplicationandisnotlimitedbythespecificwordsofSection11CPCinthisrespectthoughaproceedingforscalingdownadebtundertheMadrasAgriculturistsReliefActisanoriginalproceedingandnotasuitthedecisionoftheCourtscalingdownthedecreeasregardstheamountpayableunderitwouldberesjudicatabetweenthepartiesinsubsequentproceedings.Section11isnotexhaustiveofthecircumstancesinwhichtheprinciplesofresjudicatamaybeappliedbutwhenacasefallswithinthepurviewofSection11CPCalltherequirementsaretobesatisfied.
TheprincipleofResjudicatahasbeenheldtobeofwiderapplicationonthebasisofthewiderprincipleofthefinalityofdecisionbyCourtsoflawandadecisionunderSection12oftheU.P.AgriculturistsReliefActof1934washeldtooperateasResjudicataSection11CPCwhichembodiestheprincipleofResjudicatahasbeenheldtobenotexhaustiveandeventhoughamattermaynotbedirectlycoveredbytheprovisionsofthatsectionthemattermaystillbeResJudicataongeneralprinciples.Section11isnotexhaustivestatementofdoctrineofResJudicataandtheprinciplehasawiderapplicationthaninwarrantedbystrictlanguageofthesection.TheDivisionBenchoftheMadrasHighCourtinArikapudiBalakotayyav.YadlapalliNagayyaheldasfollows:
#ItisundoubtedlythelawthattheDoctrineofResJudicataisnotconfinedtodecisionsinasuitandthatthedoctrineapplieseventodecisionsrenderedinproceedingswhicharenotsuitsbuthowfarthedecisionwhichisrenderedinanoriginalproceedingswillbindthepartiesdependsupontheconsiderations.AdecisiongiveninaproceedingsotherthanasuitmaystilloperateasResJudicatasubstantialrightsofthepartiesaredetermined.ButifthedecisionisgiveninasummaryproceedingitdoesnotoperateasResJudicata.Proceedingsundersection842MadrasHinduReligiousEndowmentsAct,cannotbesaidtobesummaryproceedingseventhoughtheremaybenorightofappeal.Thequestionofresjudicatadoesnotdependontheapplicabilityofthedecision,whichisputforwardasconstitutingresjudicata.Thatquestioncomesinincidentallytoseeifproceedingsundersection842isofasummarynature.
ThedecisionoftheDistrictJudgetherefore,operatesasResJudicatainasubsequentproceedingsbetweenthesameparties.
ThoughSection11ofCPCislargelymodifiedeventhenitisnotexhaustive.ThepleaofresjudicatastillremainsapartfromtheseparateprovisionsofCPC.ThestatementofdoctrineofresjudicatacontainedinSection11ofCPCisnotexhaustiveandthereforerecoursemayproperlybehadtothedecisionsoftheEnglishCourtsforthepurposeofascertainingthegeneralprinciplesgoverningtheapplicationofthedoctrine.Thetermsofsection11arenottoberegardedasexhaustive.Thebindingforceofajudgementinprobateproceedingsdependsuponthesection11butuponthegeneralprinciplesoflaw.TheruleofResJudicatathoughmaybetracedtoanEnglishsourceitembodiesadoctrineinnowayopposedcommentators.TheapplicationoftheruleofresjudicatathereforebytheCourtsinIndiashouldbeincludedbynotechnicalconsiderationofformbutbymatterofsubstancewithinthelimitallowedbylaw.
ResJudicataAndPublicInterestLitigationEveninapublicinterestlitigationprocedurallawisapplicablethoughnotstrictly.Hence,theprincipleofresjudicataisalsoapplicable.Wherethepriorpublicinterestlitigationrelatestomillegalmining,subsequentpublicinterestlitigationtoprotectenvironmentisnotbarred.InRuralLitigationAndEntitlementKendrav.StateofU.P.itwasheldonthisaspect:
Thewritpetitionsbeforeusarenotinterpartydisputesandhavebeenraisedbywayofpublicinterestlitigationandthecontroversybeforethecourtisastowhetherforsocialsafetyandforcreatingahazardlessenvironmentforthepeopletolivein,miningintheareashouldbepermittedorstopped.Wemaynotbetakentohavesaidthatforpublicinterestlitigations,procedurallawsdonotapply.Atthesametimeithastoberememberedthateverytechnicalityintheprocedurallawisnotavailableasadefensewhenamatterofgravepublicimportanceisforconsiderationbeforethecourt.Evenifitissaidthattherewasafinalorder,inadisputeofthistypeitwouldbedifficulttoentertainthepleaofresjudicata.Aswehavealreadypointedoutwhentheorderof12thmarch,1985reportedinAIR1985SC652,wasmade,noreferencetotheForestConservationActof1980hadbeendone.Weareoftheviewthatleavingthequestionopenforexaminationinfuturewouldleadtounnecessarymultiplicityofproceedingsandwouldbeagainsttheinterestsofthesociety.Itismeteandproperasalsointheinterestofthepartiesthattheentirequestionistakenintoaccountatthisstage.
Undoubtedly,theEnvironmentProtectionAct,1986hascomeintoforcewitheffectfrom19tyhNovember,1986.UnderthisActpowerisvestedintheCentralGovernmenttotakemeasurestoprotectandimprovetheenvironment.Thesewritpetitionswerefiledasearlyas1983morethanthreeyearsbeforetheActcameintoforce.ThisCourtappointedseveralexpertcommittees,receivedtheretheirreportsandonthebasisofmaterialsplacedbeforeit,madedirections,partlyfinalandpartlyinterlocutory,inregardtocertainminesinthearea.Severaldirectionsfromtimetotimehavebeenmadebythiscourt.Asmanyasfourreportableordershavebeengiven.Theseveralpartiesandtheircounselhavebeenheardfordaystogetherondifferentissuesduringthethreeandaquarteryearsofthependencyoftheproceedings.ThisActdoesnotpurporttoandperhapscouldnottakeawaythejurisdictionofthiscourttodealwithacaseofthistype.Inconsiderationofthesefacts,wedonotthinkthereisanyjustificationtodeclinetheexerciseofjurisdictionatthisstage.Ordinarilythecourtwouldnotentertainadisputefortheadjudicationofwhichaspecialprovisionhasbeenmadebylawbutthatruleisnotattractedinthepresentinthepresentsituationinthesecases.
-
2/10/2015 ResJudicataAuthorJayantBhatt
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rju.htm 4/5
TheconceptofPublicInterestLitigation,aninnovationofthejudicialactivismofIndiaduringthathasindeedprovedtobeaboontothedowntrodden,oppressedandexploitedsectionsofsocietyforprovidingthemwitheasyaccesstojustice.
ConclusionTheprincipleofResJudicatadoesnotapplystrictlytopublicinterestlitigations.TheprocedurallawsarenotfullyapplicabletoPILcases.Wherethepriorpublicinterestrelatestoillegalmining,subsequentpublicinterestlitigationtoprotectenvironmentisnotbarred.Though,theprovisionsofsection11oftheCodearemandatoryandtheordinarylitigantwhoclaimsunderoneofthepartiestotheformersuitcanonlyavoiditsprovisionsbytakingadvantageofsection44oftheIndianEvidenceActwhichdefineswithprecisionthegroundsofsuchevidenceasfraudorcollusion.Itisnotforthecourttotreatnegligenceorgrossnegligenceasfraudorcollusionunlessfraudorcollusionistheproperinferencefromfacts.Otherfactorsinexceptiontosection11beingpresentmustbelitigatingbonafideandthefulfillmentofthisisnecessaryfortheapplicabilityofthesection.
SincetheprimaryobjectofResJudicataistobringanendtolitigation,thereisnoreasonnottoextendthedoctrinetopublicinterestlitigation.InForwardConstructionCo.v.PrabhatMandal,theSupremeCourtwasdirectlycalledupontodecidethequestion.Theapexcourtheldthattheprinciplewouldapplytopublicinterestlitigationprovideditwasabonafidelitigation.
InanothercaseofRamdasNayakv.UnionofIndia,thecourtobserved:Itisarepetitivelitigationontheverysameissuecomingupbeforethecourtsagainandagaininthegrabofpublicinterestlitigation.Itishightimetoputanendtothesame.
***************EndNotes:1.SatyadhyanGhosalv.DeorajinDebi,AIR1960SC9412.SatyadhyanGhosalv.DeorajinDebi,AIR1960SC941atp.9433.SheoparsanSinghv.RamnandanSingh,AIR1916PC784.GulabchandChhotalalParikhv.StateofBombaynowGujrat,AIR1965SC11535.ManzurulHaqv.HakimMohsinAliAIR1970All.604at605SheodanSinghv.DaryaoKunwarAIR1966SC13326.LaxmiGaudav.DAndariGauraAIR1992Ori.57.VenkataSeshayyav.KoteswaraRao1937Mad.2638.Baboov.Mt.Kirpa1950A.A4889.1937P.C.110.VenkataSeshayyav.KoteswaraRao1937Mad.26311.AIR1948P.C.168at17112.KunheemaAmmav.BalaKrishnaNairAIR1967Ker.9713.AnantamoiDAsiv.BholaNathAIR1941Calcutta10414.Kottamav.SimachalamAIR1969AP7615.RadhaShyamv.MoolChandAIR1967All.2816.AIR1981SC219917.AIR1965SC115318.AIR1961SC1457,Daryaov.State19.AIR1959SC276,NarayanaChettiarv.AnnamalaiChettiar20.AIR1957Patna319,BansidharEstateCollieriesandInduatriesLtd.Vs.TheState.21.AIR1957A.P.842,Seshammavs.Gangaraju.22.AIR1954Rajasthan4,ShahPremchandvs.Dhanmal.AIR19054Bombay140,Kelavadappavs.Vasun23.Gauda.24.AIR1956All.238.Munshivs.ChiranjiSingh.25.Air1959Patna319,BensidharEstateCollieriesandInduatriesLtd.Vs.TheState.AIR1948Lah.196,26.BachintKaurvs.KramChand.27.AIR1952Mad384,SarangapaniAyyangarvs.VenkataNarsimhaAcharyulu.28.AIR1946Mad.50929.AIR1947Nagpur247,ManoharVinayakvs.LaxmanAnandRao.AIR1926Cal56330.AIR121PC11,Hokvs.A.G.ofBengal31.AIR1932PC161,MaungSeinDonevs.MapanNyun.32.AIR1930PC22,KalipadaDevs.DurjapadaDas.33.AIR1988SC218734.AIR1986SC39135.AIR1995Bom235
MoreArticles:JusticeDelayedisJusticeDeniedUrgentNeedofAmendmentinIndianEvidenceActDemocracyAndTheLawMiscarriageOfJustice
WeofferCopyrightRegistrationServicesRightfromyourDesktop.....
Theauthorcanbereachedat:[email protected]/ PrintThisArticle
ibiboads
-
2/10/2015 ResJudicataAuthorJayantBhatt
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rju.htm 5/5
ArbitrationCyberLawCopyrightProtectyourwebsiteTrademarksPassportIncomeTaxContractlawsCriminallawsLokAdalat,legalAid&PILSupremeCourtJudgmentsLegalLatinmaximsFamousTrialsDownloadlawFormsFamousQuotes
MedicoLegalDivorcelawFamilylawPatentFormsWillslawibraryLawArticlesLegalResourcesChequebouncelawsLawBloglegalDiscussionForumOsamaBinLadenStampDutyCalculatorLinkExchangeBareActs
ConstitutionalLawImmigrationLawCompanyLawPartnershipfirmsWomanissuesConsumerlawsCauseListsHighCourtsinIndialegalProfessionLawForumWebSearchBlogsAdpageSitemapRSSFeed
LawyersinIndiaSearchbyCity
lawyersinDelhiNewDelhilawyersinChennailawyersinChandigarhlawyersinSuratlawyersinNashiklawyersinJanjgirlawyersinIndorelawyersinAllahabadlawyersinAgralawyersinAhmedabadlawyersinJodhpurLawyersinNoida&GrNoidaLawyersinNewYorkLawyersIndia
lawyersinKolkatalawyersinMumbailawyersinBangalorelawyersinPunelawyersinHyderabadlawyersinRajkotlawyersinNagpurlawyersinPondicherrylawyersinJaipurlawyersinCochinlawyersinLucknowInternationalCourtsLawCollegesLawDebates
Home|AboutUs|Privacy|Termsofuse|FAQ|Divorcebymutualconsent|Lawyers|Submitarticle|Sitemap|ContactUs
legalServiceIndia.comisCopyrightedundertheRegistrarofCopyrightActGovtofIndia20002013ISBNNo:9789382417019
Addacomment
View88more
Facebooksocialplugin
134comments
ManiSharma TopCommenterWorksatRetiredAnHcjudgeinTamilnadudisposes5005andaSubJudgeinKeraladisposes2575casesperyear.Ifthisrateisappliedthereare7500subJudgesand272HCJudgessurplusinIndia.thereisnopolicyforJudgespostshencetheJudiciaryhasbeenfunctioninginaHighhandedandarbitrarymanner.Onemaysayinadequateoradequateifanyatransparentpolicyforcreationofposts.Sincethereisnosuchpolicyhencenoinadequacy.Acaseofrapeandmurderon26.12.12wasdecidedon5.2.13.Thenwhyothersaredelayed.Isitequalitybeforejusticeoradramainthenameofjusticetodupeandextractpeople.ReplyLike June15,2014at5:24am
View6more
21
AsishKumarBeheraActivistatWakeUpMyIndiawithASHPweneedjurysystem
..ReplyLikeJuly24,2014at12:04pm
BalaSubramanianWorksatRetiredAgreed.OurJudicialsystemneedscompletereorientation.ThereshouldbemoretransparencyinappointmentofJudges.ThewordsofParkinson"delayisdeadliestformofdenial'holdsgoodintheworkingofJudiciary.ReplyLike October9,2014at9:56pm6
JoelSebastianSAPSidon'tagreewithyourlastview...Theamplitudeandveracityofeachcasesdifferfromeachother...itisthedutyofthejudiciarytogobeyondreasonability...ReplyLike October20,2014at5:08pm5
BoyPlayKarachi,Pakistanhttp://payfunda.biz/invitation/?share=YasirReplyLikeJanuary31at6:35am
