Download - 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



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.



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.



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



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