Introduction
Section 11 of the Code embodies the doctrine of res-judicata. It enacts that one a matter is heard and finally decided by a competent court, no part can be permitted to re- open it in subsequent litigation. In absence of such a rule there will be no end to litigation and the parties would be put to constant trouble and harassment.
In the suits of Spencer Bower, res-judicata means “a final decision pronounced by a judicial tribunal having competent jurisdiction over the cause or matter in litigation, and over the parties thereto”.
Section 11 of CPC
Section 11 of the Code reads as follows:
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 a 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 a 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 .
Explanation VII.– The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
Explanation VIII.– An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.
Nature and Scope
“Res” means “subject-matter” and “judicata” means “adjudged or decided or adjudicated”, hence, res-judicata means “a matter adjudged” or “a matter decided”.
It is founded on the principle of justice, equity and good conscience which require that a party who has once succeeded on an issue should not be harassed by multiplicity of proceedings. This doctrine is conceived in the larger public interest which requires that all litigation must, sooner or later, come to an end.
Section 11 embodies the rule of conclusiveness and operates as a bar to try the same issue once again. It thereby avoids vexatious litigation.
Illustration –
A sues B for damages for breach of contract. The suit is dismissed. A subsequent suit is brought by A against B for damages for breach of the same contract is barred. A’s right to claim damages from B for breach of contract having been decided in previous suit, it becomes res judicata, and cannot therefore be tried in subsequent suit.
Object
The doctrine of res-judicata are founded on three maxims which are;
- Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no man should be vexed twice for the same cause);
- Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation); and
- Res judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct).
Extent and Applicability
This doctrine applies to civil suits, execution proceedings, arbitration proceedings, taxation matters, industrial adjudication, writ petitions, administrative orders, interim orders, criminal proceedings, etc. The doctrine of res judicata confined in section 11 of the Code is not exhaustive.
Conditions
The following conditions are to be fulfilled in order to apply the rule of res-judicata:
Former Suit
The expression ‘former suit’ implies that there must be two suits or proceedings for the application of this section. In view of the 1st Explanation of this section , former suit means previously decided suit although in point of time it might have been instituted subsequently. However, where there are two suits, a decision given simultaneously cannot be a decision in former suit.
Illustration –
DATE OF INSTITUTION. JUDGEMENT DATE. FORMER SUIT
01.01.2016. 03. 07.2021. Yes
01.01.2019. Judgement Pending. No
Matter Directly and Substantially in Issue
Matter in issue are divided into the following categories:
- Matters directly and substantially in issue.
- Matters collaterally or incidentally in issue.
MATTERS DIRECTLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY IN ISSUE
Explanation III resolves the query on when a matter can be said as “directly and substantially in issue”. A matter will be directly and substantially in issue of it has been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted expressly or impliedly, by the other in former suit.
The word ‘directly’ means, directly, at once, immediately, without intervention and is used in contradiction to “collaterally or incidentally”. The word ‘substantially’ means of importance and value. A matter is substantially in issue if it is of importance and value for decision of the main proceeding.
Illustration-
A sues B for rent due for year 2021. The defence is that no rent is due. Here, the claim for rent is the matter in respect of which relief is claimed. This, therefore, is a matter directly and substantially in issue.
MATTER COLLATERALLY OR INCIDENTALLY IN ISSUE
A suit may also involve matters that are collaterally or incidentally in issue. A collateral or incidental issue is one that is ancillary to a direct and substantive issue. The former is said to be subsidiary issue while the latter is the principal issue. In other words, decisions on matters not alleged or denied or admitted within the meaning of Explanation III are decisions on matters incidental or collateral to the main issue in the case.
Illustration-
Mr. X sue Mr. Y for rent due. Mr. Y pleads abatement of rent on the ground that the area is less than that entered in the lease. The court finds out that the area is greater then that has been shown in lease. The finding as to excess area is not res-judicata for it is only ancillary to the direct and substantial issues- whether the area is equal or less than that shown in the lease.
Same Parties
The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim. This condition recognizes the general principle of law that judgements and decrees bind the party and their privies.
A “party” is a person whose name appears on the record at the time of the decision.
Illustration-
A sues B for rent. B contents that A is not the landlord, and the suit is dismissed. A subsequent suit either by A or by X claiming through A is barred by law.
Same Title
The parties to the subsequent suit must have litigated under the same title as in former suit. Same title means in same capacity. Title refers to the capacity or interest of a party, that is to say, whether he sues or is sued for himself in his own interest or for himself as representing the interest of another or as representing the interest of others along with himself and it has nothing to do with the particular cause of action on which he sues or is sued. Simply put, litigating under same title means that the demand should be of the same quality in the second suit as was in the first suit.
Illustration –
A sues B for title to the priory as an heir of C under customary law. The suit is dismissed. The subsequent suit for title to property as an heir of C under personal law is barred.
Competent Court
The court which decided the former suit must have been a Court Competent to try the subsequent suit. The term “competent to try” means competent to try the subsequent suit if brought at the time the first suit was brought. In other words, the relevant point of time for deciding the question of competence of the Court is the date when the former suit was brought and not the date when the subsequent suit was filed. The court which decided the former suit must have been either a Court of:
- Exclusive jurisdiction, or
- A Court of concurrent jurisdiction competent to try the subsequent suit, or
- A Court of limited jurisdiction competent to try the issue raised in the subsequent suit.
Heard and Finally Decided
The final condition for application of the rule of res judicata is that the mate directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and foamy decided by a competent court in the former suit. The expression “heard and finally” decided implied that:
- The court had exercised its judicial mind and has after argument and consideration came to a decision on a contested matter, and
- It’s decision is final.
A decision is not final if it is subject to the decision of a higher court. Similarly, when the former suit is dismissed on the ground of limitation the question of title raised therein cannot be said to have been finally decided.
0 Comments