Res Judicata

Section 11 of C.P.C. defines res judicata as under :

“No court shall try suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim 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”.

Essential Conditions of Res Judicata

The following conditions must be satisfied to constitute a matter as res judicata: (Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, AIR 1966 SC 1332).

(I) The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (Explanation III) or constructively (Explanation IV) in the former suit (Explanation I) (Explanation VII is to be read with this condition).

(II) The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim. (Explanation VI is to be read with this condition).

(III) Such parties must have been litigating under the same title inthe former suit.

(IV) The court which decided the former suit must be a court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised. (Explanation II & VIII are to be read with this condition).

(V) The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the former suit. (Explanation V is to be read with this condition).

Matter directly and substantially in issue

The expression “matter in issue” means the rights litigated between the parties i. e. the facts on which the right is claimed and the law applicable to the determination of that issue. Such issue may be an issue of fact, issue of law or mixed issue of law and fact.

It is the “matter in issue” and not the subject matterof the suit that forms the essential test of res judicata. “Directly” means directly, at once, immediately, without, intervention.

It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.A matter can be said to be substantially in issue if it is important for the decision of a case.

Thus, The matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit.

Explanation III to S. 11 makes it clear that a matter cannot be said to have been directly and substantially in issue in a suit unless it was alleged by one parties and denied or admitted either expressly or impliedly by the other.

Thus, a matter in respect which no relief is claimed cannot become ‘directly and substantially in issue’ even if a decree is passed by a competent court (Pandurang v. Shatibai, 1989 SC 2240)

Between the Same Parties

The second condition of Res judicata is that the former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim. A party is a person whose name appears on the record at the time of the decision. A party may be a plaintiff or a defendant. There may be Res judicata between a plaintiff and defendant. Similarly, it may be res judicata between co-defendants and co-plaintiffs.

The test for res judicata between co-defendants has been laid down in the case Mahbob Sahab v. Syed Ismail, AIR 1995 SC 1205. It is concluded that if a party obtains a decree from the court by practicing fraud or collusion, he cannot be allowed to say that the matter is res judicata and cannot be reopened.

If there is a conflict of matter between plaintiff and it is necessary to resolve the same by a court in order to give relief to a defendant and the matter is a fact decided, it will operate as Res judicata between co plaintiffs in the subsequent suit.

A defendant to a suit against whom no relief is claimed is called a Performa defendant. Parties under whom they or any of them claim” comprise two classes of persons-

(a) Parties actually present in the former suit.

(b) Parties claiming under the parties to the suit, and

(c) Persons Represented by a party in the former suit (ExplanationVI)

Explanation VI to S.11 deals with representative suit which means the suit filed by one or more persons on behalf of themselves and others having same interest in the suit.

Thus, the following Conditions must be satisfied before a decision may operate as res judicata (under Explanation VI)

(a) There must a right claimed by one or more persons,

(b) Parties whose name are not mentioned in suit must be interestin such right,

(c) the litigation must be conducted bona fide and on behalf of the interested parties,

(d) If the Suit is under Order1, Rule 8, all conditions laid downtherein must have been strictly complied with.

Litigating under the Same Title

The third condition of res judicata is that parties to the subsequent suit must have litigated under the same title in the former suit. The test of res judicata is the identity of title in the two litigations and not the identity of the subject-matter involved in two cases.

Competency of Court to try the subsequent suit

The fourth condition of res judicata is that the court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit.

The expression “competent to try” means competent to try the subsequent suit if brought at the time the first suit was brought.

FormerSuit’ denotes a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in questionn whether or not it was instituted prior thereto (Explanation 1)

In order that a decision in a former suit may operate as res judicata,the suit must have been either-

(a) A court of exclusive jurisdiction, or

(b) A court of limited jurisdiction, or

(c) A court of concurrent jurisdiction

It is relevant to mention here that the Competency relates both to pecuniary jurisdiction and subject-matter. It has no reference to territorial jurisdiction. A finding of criminal court does not bind a civil court.

In Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and Another, [AIR 2005 SC 626), while drawing a distinction between the principles of ‘res judicata’ and ‘issue estoppel‘ noticed Res judicata debars a court from exercising its jurisdiction to determine the issue if it has attained finality between the parties whereas the doctrine issue estoppel is invoked against the party. If such an issue is decided against him, he would be estopped from raising the same in the later proceeding. The doctrine of res-judicata creates a different kind of estoppel viz. Estoppel By Accord. The matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit.

Heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit

The last condition is that the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. A matter will be said to have been finally decided not withstanding that the former suit was disposed of ex -parte or dismissed for failure to produce evidence when the time was allowed to do so.

In Noharlal Verma v. District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Jagdalpur, AIR 2009 SC 664, The Supreme Court held that so far as res judicata is concerned, in our opinion, the appellant is right in submitting that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the application filed by the appellant was barred by res judicata. It is clear from the fact stated hereinabove that the application was filed by the appellant to Joint Registrar, Raipur. It was pending. Meanwhile, however, District Bastar had its own Registry and hence, an application was submitted to District Registrar, Bastar. The application preferred by the appellant to the Joint Registrar, Raipur, in the circumstances, become infructuous. It was not decided on merits. As per settled law, such decision does not operate as res judicata. The High Court was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the Tribunal was in error in dismissing the application on the ground of res judicata, That part of the order passed by the Tribunal was, therefore, rightly not approved by the High Court.

In Chandrabhai K. Bhoir v. Krishna Arjun Bhoir, AIR 2009 SC 1645, order passed without jurisdiction is nullity. It will be a coram non-judice. It is non est in the eye of law. The principles of res judicata will not apply to such cases.

In Harbans Singh v. Sant Hari Singh, AIR 2009 SC 1819, suit filed by person-in-charge of affairs of Gurudwara that he was Mohtmim of Gurudwara and for permanent injunction. An another suit filed by Managing Committee of Gurudwara for declaration that plaintiff is connected suit was not Mohtmim. Disputes between parties to both suits were common and issues raised therein also common. Decree for permanent injunction granted in favour of plaintiff in first suit whereby Managing Committee was restrained from interfering with his possession. The decree attaining finality. Second appeal by Vice-President of Managing Committee not claiming any interest in his individual capacity-Barred by res judicata.

In Sarva Shramik Sangh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 2355, it was held when the case of the workers is that the contract was sham and nominal, they could seek a relief that they should be declared as the direct employees of the principal employer; and if that contention failed and it is found that the contract was valid, then they can seek issue a direction to the Central Government to consider their representation for abolition of contract labour. Similarly where the workers contend that the contract between principal employer and the contractor was sham and merely a camouflage to deny them the benefits of labour laws, and if their prayer for relief under CLRA Act is rejected, they can then seek relief under the ID Act. The contention of IOC that on account of the dismissal of the first petition, the second petition for a different relief was barred either by principle of res judicata or by principle of estoppel would be liable to be rejected. When the parties are different, issues are different, reliefs are different, the question of either res judicata, or finality of proceedings, acquiescence or estoppel will not arise.

In Haryana State Electricity Board v. M/s Hanuman Rice Mills & Ors., 2010 (4) PWR (SC) 61, first suit filed for permanent injunction to restrain appellant from enforcing demand notice in respect of charges incurred by previous owner-second suit sought a declaration that consequential disconnection of electricity supply for arrears of previous owner was invalid and for consequential relief-matter was not the same in both suits and reliefs claimed were also different-second suit was not barred by res judicata.