Home
Civil Law

Doctrine of Res Judicata: When One Judgment is Enough

Res Judicata: A Cornerstone of Legal Efficiency and Dispute Resolution

Overview: 

The doctrine of res judicata gives respect and finality to the judicial decisions. The bar of res judicata contained in Section 11 would be fully attracted. This doctrine has been incorporated in section 11, of C P.C. based on the general rule, that man shall not be twice vexed, for the same cause. The bar of Res Judicata contained in section 11 would be fully attracted.

When a matter involved in the second suit was the same as that involved in previous litigation up to the High Court. The doctrine applies to the suits or issues which are or have been decided in a former suit.

Relevant Provisions:

Following are the relevant provisions of law regarding the topic of Res Judicata. 
(i) Section 11 of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908
Cross Reference:
  • (i) Section 151 of C.P.C; 
  • (ii) Section 403 Cr.P.C.
  • (iii) Article 13(A) of Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
  • (iv) Section 26 of General Clauses Act.

Meaning of Res Judicata: 

(In Latin: a matter that has been decided) 
It means that the matter in dispute has been considered and finally settled and that the adjudication has a conclusive effect upon the rights determined.
(i) According to Black’s Law Dictionary
“An issue that has been settled by judicial decision”. The term Res Judicata Signifies, that the matter in dispute has been considered and finally settled, and that the adjudication has a conclusive effect, upon the rights determined”.
Res Judicata: All You Want to Know About

Definition of Res Judicata: 

A final judicial decision pronounced by a judicial tribunal having competent: jurisdiction over the cause or matter in litigation and over the parties thereto.
(i) According to Spencer Bower:
Res judicata means “a final judicial decision pronounced by a judicial tribunal having competent jurisdiction over the cause or matter in litigation and over the parties thereto”. 
(ii) According to Justice Das Gupta: 
The doctrine of Res judicata has been explained in the simplest manner by justice Dasgupta in the case of Satyadnyn vs. Deorjn Debi in the following words. 
The principle of Res Judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions.
(iii) According to Oxford Dictionary of Law:
The principle that when a matter has been finally adjudicated upon by a court of the competent jurisdiction on it may not be opened or challenged by the original party.

Duchess Of Kingston's Case:

In this case Sir William de Grey summarises the doctrine of res judicata in his judgement in the following words: From the variety of cases relative to judgments being given in evidence in civil suits, these two deductions seem to follow as generally true.
  • Firstly: The judgment, of a Court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly upon a point is conclusive between the same parties upon the same matter directly in question in another Court.
  • Secondly: The judgment, of a court of exclusive jurisdiction, directly upon the point is, conclusive between the same parties upon the same matter, coming incidentally in question, in another Court. 

Text of Section 11 of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908

No Court shall try 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.

Basis of Principle of Res Judicata:

(a) The doctrine of res-judicata is based on three maxims

  • (i) Namo debt bis Vexari Prouna eaden causa: “No one should be troubled twice for the same cause”.
  • (ii) Interest repubticae ut sit finis litium: “It is in the interest of the state that there be limit to a litigation”
  • (iii) Resjudicata Proveritate Occipitur: A matter adjudged should be taken as truth. 

According to Sir Lawrence Jenking:

The rule of res judicata, while the foundation account of precedent is directed by wisdom which is for all time. Thus the doctrine of Res Judicata is the combined result of public policy reflected in maxims (ii) and (iii) and private justice expressed in maxim (i) and they apply to all judicial proceedings whether civil or criminal. But this rule there would be no end to litigation and no security for any person, the rights of person would be involved in endless confusion and great injustice would be done under the cover of the law.  Hence the principle of res-judicata is founded on justice, equity, and good conscience.

(b) The rule of res judicata is based on the ground of public policy. If litigations between parties on the same subject matter involving the same issue are allowed to proceed there can be no end to litigation.
Res Judicata is based on the consideration that it would result in hardship to an individual, if he were to be vexed twice for the same cause, and it is in the interest of the State, that there should be an end to litigation. Bahadur vs. Umar Hayat (PLD 1993).

Reasons For Doctrine of Res Judicata:

Following are the reasons for the principle of Res Judicata.
  • (i) Efficiency of Court: Efficiency of the Court requires that finality should be given to judicial decisions and res judicata works for this purpose.
  • (ii) Public Convenience: It is for the public convenience, that having been tried once, all litigation about that cause should be concluded forever between those parties. 
  • (iii) Maintenance of Society: The maintenance of Public order and society requires that what has been definitely determined by competent tribunals shall be accepted as legal truth.
  • (iv) Security of Rights: lf the principle of Res Judicata not apply then the most important function of Government that of ascertaining and enforcing persons rights, would go unfulfilled.

Scope and Application of Res Judicata:

Section 11 is not exhaustive, and in its terms it applies only to suits but the principle underlying the rule of Res Judicata can be invoked by virtue of section 151 of C.P.C
The principle of Res Judicata can be applied to proceedings other than suits viz. constitutional petitions, rent applications, and cases before the settlement authorities. [2002 CLC 1620].

Not only the decision of the Court but also grounds on which the same was based would also operate as Res Judicata. Where a person in the memorandum of appeal, had taken plea, and then abandoned same, fresh adjudication of those grounds would be barred by principle of Res Judicata 1988  CLC  2164

Judicial precedent in a case itself operates as Res Judicata, even if a person was not a party to that litigation. 1992  MLD  1338.

The principle of Res Judicata and the subsidiary principles of constructive Res Judicata are applicable to execution proceedings. 1990  CLC  1845. 

Essential Requirements for the Application of Res Judicata:

The basic ingredients of Res Judicata are: Subject-matter should be the same; parties should have been same; and the matter should have attained finality and must have been disposed of by the Competent Authority. It is not every matter decided in a former suit that can be pleaded, as res judicata in a subsequent suit, but in order to constitute a matter as res judicata the following conditions must be present.

(i) Same Matter in Issue:

The principle of Res Judicata is embodied in section 11 of C.P.C. by virtue of which subsequent Court is barred to try a suit, where the matter, directly and substantially in issue, has been decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction. 2002 CLC KAR. 1620

All the matters in issue must be the same in both suits. The term matter means necessary facts, constituting the claim or defense. 
Directly or substantially:
Matter in both suits must be directly and substantially the same.
A matter shall be directly in issue which has been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted expressly or impliedly by the other.
A matter shall be substantially in issue if it is important and valuable for the decision of the case.

(ii) Same Parties:

Both the suits must have been between the same parties or their representatives under whom they or any of them claim. For the purposes of res judicata, a person can either be:

  • (i) a party or
  • (ii) Claim under a party i.e. privy
  • (iii)or be represented by a party to a suit, or
  • (iv) be a complete stranger. 
For Example:

If A sues B for a declaration of title to a certain land and obtains a decree and A, then sues C for possession and C contends that B is the owner of the land and he is in possession as tenant of B the defense is barred by the principle of Res Judicata. 
Ordinarily, a person whose name appears on the record as a plaintiff or defendant at the time of the decision of the suit is a party for the purposes of res judicata, but where the name is omitted in the formal order by mistake such person will still be bound.
A person who intervenes in a suit will be considered to be a party. A judgment as such will not operate as res judicata upon some persons, even though they may have been parties to the suit at the same stage. For Instance:

  • (i) A party whose name is struck off or who is discharged from the suit. 
  • (ii): A person whose name is born on the record fraudulently and without his knowledge.
  • (iii) A person whose application to be made a party has been refused.

(iii) Same Title: 

The parties must be contesting in both the suits, under the same title; 
The term “Titles” refers to the legal capacity or interest of a party or legal personality of a party. In order that a matter be res judicata not only should the parties be the same, but such parties should litigate under the same title as in the former suit. The title will be the same in the following cases.
(i) Former suit as husband's heir and subsequent suit as claimant for dower.
(ii) Former suit against firm and subsequent suit against partner thereof. 

A verdict against a man suing in one capacity will not stop him when he sues in another capacity. Thus where a suit is brought by a person for possession of  property in the capacity of an heir of the deceased but the suit fails because of his failure to establish heirship, he is not debarred from bringing another suit in the capacity of manager of the same property. 

The title of a property has nothing to do with the subject matter of the suit, or the cause of action. All that is to be seen is that the matters directly and substantially in issue must be the same in both suits where the parties to the former suit and the subsequent suit are the same but they are not litigating under the same title, the decision in the former suit will not be Res Judicata in the subsequent suit.

You should also read Doctrine of Res Sub-Judice

(iv) First Suit Must Be Decided: 

Such matter in issue in a subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the Court in the first suit. The term res judicata indicates that the matter has already been adjudicated upon in a former suit. A matter will be res judicata only if it has been heard and finally decided. There must be a final decision of the matter.

If the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed in default or dismissed on a preliminary point with the appellate court having discussed the merits of the case, the decision of the lower court remains intact and will continue to operate as res judicata. Further it is the decision that creates the bar and not the decree. It is not necessary that the decision should have been incorporated in the decree.

Illustration:
A sues B to recover certain property belonging to the estate of C alleging that his father had been adopted by C’s brother, D to whom the property decanted on C's death. The suit is dismissed on the ground that the adoption is not proved. A then sues B to recover the same property Claiming it as C’s bandhu (Sanskrit for friend connected with bandhan or ties). The suit is barred as res judicata. A ought to have claimed the property in the first suit in the alternative as C’s bandhu. 

(v) Competency of Court: 

The Court which decided the former suit, means the suit which has been decided prior to the Suit in question, whether or not it was instituted prior in time, must be competent to try the subsequent - Suit. The effect of this condition is that the court that tried the former suit and the court trying the Subsequent suit should be courts of concurrent jurisdiction. The term competent as used in section 11 refers to the competence of the former court to try the whole of the subsequent suit. It is the competence of the former trial court that is to be established and not that of the appellate court which may have finally determined the matter.

Constructive Res Judicata:

The doctrine of constructive Res Judicata is embodied in explanation IV to sec 11 of Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 [2002 CLC 1620]

Meaning of Constructive Res Judicata:

Constructive Res Judicata refers, that if the parties had an opportunity to assert a ground, in support of their claim or defense in a former suit, and have not done so, they shall be deemed to have raised such grounds in a former suit, and it shall be further deemed, that these grounds had been heard and decided, as if, these matters had been actually in issue.

Exceptions of Constructive Res Judicata:

Following are the exceptions to the doctrine of constructive Res Judicata:
  • (i) Where pleas are barred by law.
  • (ii) Where pleas need not to be raised in the former suit.
  • (iii) The pleas raised but not decided by the Court.
  • (iv) Where the matter is not in issue actually or constructively.

Where Doctrine of Res Judicata Does not Apply:

Following are the cases where bar of Res Judicata may be avoided.

(i) Judgement obtained by Fraud Collusion or without Jurisdiction:
A party can avoid the bar of Res Judicata by proving that the Judgment has been obtained by fraud, or collusion or passed by a Court without jurisdiction. Plea of Res Judicata is not available where fraud pleaded as basis for obtaining decree. 1973  PLD  652
Recall of Orders under Section 151:
A court or tribunal may recall its orders, if it is without jurisdiction or is tainted with fraud or collusion.
(ii) Administrative Forums:

Where formal decision has been reached by any administrative forum, such decision does not constitute bar to reopening and reconsideration of the same matter where the earlier decision is clearly open to some objection or the same is not reached after proper inquiry or fresh evidence having a material bearing on the point decided in the previous decision, becomes available. Doctrine of Res Judicata applicable to cases before Income-tax authorities subject to certain limitations 1981  SCMR  656

(iii) In changed circumstances:

Principle of Res Judicata in rent cases would not apply when cause of action of second ejectment application arose after disposal of previous application. On subsequent cause of action, fresh application is maintainable. 1993  MLD  844

(iv) No Decision on merits:

An order operates as a Res Judicata only, if it decides the dispute between parties on merits. Decision not based on merits but on other grounds, cannot operate as a bar. Point not decided on merits in the earlier litigation, would not constitute Res Judicata. [2001  YLR  3139]

(v) Criminal proceedings:

The doctrine of Res Judicata is unknown to a criminal proceeding. That is why second criminal revision application or a second criminal bail application is not barred under the law, although there should be fresh material to justify the same.

(vi) Departmental proceedings:

Principle of Res Judicata does not apply to departmental proceedings.1962  PLD  362 

(vii) Where the Plea of Res Judicata was not raised in Pleadings:

The plea of Res Judicata must be raised in the pleadings and if not so raised, it shall be deemed to have been waived or deemed to have been raised, and decided against the party not raising it, by virtue of doctrine of constructive Res Judicata. Bar of Res Judicata neither pleaded in written statement by defendant nor defendant ever produced any copy of any judgment in previous suits, Plea of Res Judicata , held, rightly rejected by trial Court. 1978  SCMR  130

(viii) Industrial disputes:

Principle of Res Judicata is not applicable to industrial disputes. 1962  PLC  769

On Whom the Principle of Res Judicata Applies:

A decision will be Res Judicata between the following parties:
  • (i) Parties on opposite sides
  • (ii) Parties on the same sides.
(I) Parties on Opposite Sides:

A decision will be Res Judicata between the parties on opposite sides i.e. plaintiff and defendant. 


(II) Parties on Same Sides: 

A decision will be Res Judicata between the parties on the opposite sides i.e. plaintiff and defendant. When there is more than one plaintiff involved in a suit and that suit is properly decided by the court then the principle of Res Judicata will be applied on all the plaintiffs and the defendant or the defendants as the case may be But the dismissal of suit under Order XVII, rule 3 of CPC for the nonproduction of evidence by some of the plaintiffs of the case could not be made basis of Res Judicata for the other plaintiffs. (2006 CLJ 633)

  • (i) Conflict of Interest: There should have been a conflict of interest between such co-plaintiff and co-defendants in the former suit.
  • (ii) Necessary to decide Such Conflict: It must have been necessary, to decide such conflict, for granting relief in the suit.
  • (iii) Finally Decided Matter: Such conflict or matter must have been finally decided.
  • (iv) Party in Former Suit: Such a person must have been a necessary or a proper party, in the former suit.
Illustration:
In a suit for the partition of land by A and B against C and D,  all the four conditions, enumerated above are fulfilled, and a decision given in such a suit, will be Res Judicata between all these four parties.

Conclusion:

To conclude that Justice requires that every cause should be once fairly tried and public tranquillity demands that having been tried once all litigation about that cause should be concluded forever between those parties. Whenever there is a judgment by a competent court inter-parties, it will prevent a fresh suit upon the same matter. Res Judicata as inserted under section 11 of C.P.C is of great importance, because by applying this doctrine the sanctity and conclusiveness is given to the decisions of the court, and the law becomes more certain. This doctrine is applicable only in civil cases, while, in criminal law parallel to this doctrine, is the doctrine of dual Jeopardy. The doctrine of res judicata is of universal application and in fact a fundamental concept in the organization of every judicial system. Therefore, we can say that "man shall not be twice vexed for the same cause of action.

Read also:
Highly accomplished, meticulously organized, and detailed Attorney with a proven track record of success in conducting legal research, analysis, trial preparation, and document drafting.