“The Principle of Res judicata bars subsequent civil suits of same parties, same subject matter and was decided by a competent court”. Explain &illustrate
Introduction
Res Judicata[1] means “a thing decided” in Latin. It is a common law doctrine meant to bar re-litigation 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 re-litigation 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 applies 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 exceptions–usually called collateral attacks–are 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.
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 judgment 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 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 hasbeen 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 defense 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 plant, 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 them 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 reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to proceedings 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 as 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.
3.0.2 Cases:
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES
Magistrates often have before them in domestic proceedings charges which later form the basis of divorce actions, and the question which consequently wises is whether the findings of the magistrates are to be regarded as affecting an estoppel in the Divorce Court. The courts have experienced great difficulty in applying the doctrine of res judicata to such circumstances, but its scope has recently been illuminated and clarified by judicial pronouncement. The cases concern both the form of the decision in the previous hearing, and the authority of the court.
4.0 CONCLUSION:
The principle of Res Judicata does not apply strictly to public interest litigations. The procedural laws are not fully applicable to PIL cases. Where the prior public interest relates to illegal mining, subsequent public interest litigation to protect environment is not barred. Though, the provisions of section 11 of the Code are mandatory and the ordinary litigant who claims less than one of the parties to the former suit can only avoid its provisions by taking advantage of section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act which defines with precision the grounds of such evidence as fraud or collusion. It is not for the court to treat negligence or gross negligence as fraud or collusion unless fraud or collusion is the proper inference from facts. Other factors in exception to section 11 being present must be litigating bona fide and the fulfillment of this is necessary for the applicability of the section.
5.0 REFERENCE:
· Res judicata [Redirected from Doctrine of res judicata]. The Free Dictionary.
Retrieved from
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Doctrine+of+res+judicata
· Jayant, B. Res judicata. Legal Service India. Retrieved from
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rju.htm
· (2011). Res judicata in recent cases. The Modern Law Review, 13. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1950.tb00169.x/pdf
· Lee, J., A. (2012). Res judicata- requirements for a case to be dismissed under doctrine of res judicata in Tennessee. Tennessee Defense Litigation.
Retrieved from http://www.tennesseedefenselitigation.com/BlogEntry.aspx?id=56
[1] Jayant, B. Res judicata. Legal Service India. Retrieved from http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rju.htm
[2] (2011). Res judicata in recent cases. The Modern Law Review, 13. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1950.tb00169.x/pdf