RES JUDICATA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. TOPICS Pg.no.

1. SYNOPSIS 1

2. INTRODUCTION 2

3. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 3

4. RES JUDICATA 3

5. EVOLUTION OF RES JUDICATA 4

6. MEANING 5

7. PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA 5

8. REQUIREMENTS OF RES JUDICATA 6

9. NATURE AND SCOPE OF RES JUDICATA 7

10. DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA 8

11. RES JUDICATA UNDER CPC & ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 10

12. EXCEPTIONS 11

13. CASE LAWS 12

14. CONCLUSION 16

15. REFERENCES 17
 LIST OF CASES

S.NO. CASES Pg.no.

1. Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi 8

2. Daryao v. State of U.P. 12

3. Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal 13

4. Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy 14

 1

RES JUDICATA

SYNOPSIS:

1. INTRODUCTION
2. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
3. RES JUDICATA
4. EVOLUTION OF RES JUDICATA
5. MEANING
6. PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA
7. REQUIREMENTS OF RES JUDICATA
8. NATURE AND SCOPE OF RES JUDICATA
9. DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA
10. RES JUDICATA UNDER CPC AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
11. EXCEPTIONS
12. CASELAWS
13. CONCLUSION
14. REFERENCES
 2

1. INTRODUCTION:

The goal of the Res Judicata doctrine, which comes from the Latin word “a matter
already decided,” is to provide finality in court cases. By Indian law, res judicata keeps courts
clear and productive by preventing a second trial of cases that a competent body has previously
decided. This idea, which states that no party should be permitted to argue the same issue more
than once after it has been fairly examined, has been included in Section 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. It is an essential instrument within the framework of both civil and
administrative law. The Principles of Natural Justice, which prioritize fairness and impartiality in
legal and administrative procedures, are closely related to res judicata in this setting of Indian
Administrative law.

The Indian legal system is based on the Principles of Natural Justice, which guarantee
that quasi-judicial and administrative bodies follow proper procedures and ensure fairness. Nemo
judex in causa sua (the rule against bias) and audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) are the
two fundamental principles of natural justice. These guidelines ensure that those making
decisions operate impartially and without regard to their interest, and that impacted parties are
given a fair opportunity to state their case. Res judicata ensures that the verdict is final and
conclusive when these requirements have been followed and a decision has been made. This
prevents subsequent challenges to the case, strengthening the decision's fairness.

The use of res judicata in administrative law protects parties and people from
unnecessary and repeated litigation, which may be expensive and time-consuming. By
forbidding the re-litigation of resolved problems, res judicata connects with the natural justice
concept that justice must be done and believed to be done. This idea is especially crucial because
authorities sometimes have a great deal of discretion and authority in administrative processes.
Thus, res judicata protects the judicial economy and protects parties from excessive harassment
by guaranteeing that once a subject has been fairly heard and determined, it cannot be fought
again.
 3

2. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:

In India, the decisions, practices, and authority of administrative authorities are regulated
by administrative law. It guarantees that governmental bodies follow legal limits while
respecting the values of transparency, responsibility, and justice. This area of law addresses the
rights of those impacted by administrative acts as well as the structure, responsibilities, and
activities of administrative authorities.

The administrative authority, gives officials the authority to make choices in certain
circumstances, and delegated legislation, allows authorities to adopt laws within legislative
boundaries, these are the two primary principles of administrative law. Indian courts utilize
judicial review to check whether administrative acts follow statutory and constitutional standards
in order to avoid the abuse of authority. The purpose of judicial review is to guarantee that
administrative procedures follow natural justice principles, including the right to a fair trial and
impartiality.

Administrative tribunals offer specialized forums for the resolution of disputes, especially
those related to public sector problems. One example of this is the Central Administrative
Tribunal. In general, administrative law in India ensures that public administration functions
justly and efficiently by maintaining a balance between governmental authority and individual
rights.

3. RES JUDICATA:

A legal theory known as “res judicata,” which comes from the Latin term means “a
matter already decided,” forbids reopening cases that have already been decided completely by
an appropriate body. This idea is outlined in Section 11 of the CPC, 1908 in India. It ensures that
once a matter has been settled through a fair and impartial procedure, it cannot be reopened or
challenged in other proceedings involving the same parties and subjects, making it an essential
instrument for maintaining judicial efficiency, certainty, and finality.

A few requirements must be completed in order for the res judicata doctrine to be
applicable. The parties in the ensuing lawsuit have to be the same as the parties in the earlier one,
or they have to be making claims under the same title. Furthermore, the subject matter in
 4

question needs to be the same in both cases which means that the previous proceeding’s problem
needed to have been directly and significantly in dispute. In addition, the prior ruling had to be
final, based only on the facts of the case, and administered by a court or tribunal with appropriate
jurisdiction. No matter whether the first decision was correct or incorrect, res judicata prevents
any additional lawsuit on the subject when those conditions are met.

Res judicata governs decisions made by administrative and quasi-judicial bodies,

including regulatory agencies and tribunals, in the field of administrative law. Administrative
decisions frequently require a great deal of discretion and can have a considerable influence on
people and organizations, therefore this part of res judicata is important. Res judicata states that
an administrative authority’s decision is final and enforceable when it follows natural justice
principles, such as the right to a fair trial and the prohibition against bias. This keeps people safe
from being pulled into arguments over settling matters again and again. It guarantees that
administrative procedures are carried out effectively and fairly.

A fundamental principle of Indian law, res judicata maintains a balance between judicial
simplicity, clarity, and fairness. It protects the rights of parties and the judiciary’s resources by
preventing the re-trial of settled cases, guaranteeing that legal disputes are concluded quickly and
permanently.

4. EVOLUTION OF RES JUDICATA:

The English Common Law System gave rise to the idea of res judicata. The fundamental
idea of judicial consistency served as the basis for the Common Law System. Res judicata was
first introduced into the Indian Legal System and later the Code of Civil Procedure from
Common law. The doctrine of res judicata will cause the suit to be dismissed if any of the parties
to a case ask the same court to rule on the same subject. Administrative law is impacted by res
judicata as well. It assists in managing the speed with which the judiciary hears cases and solves
them.

When the same parties and facts are included in multiple petitions filed in the same or
another Indian court, the idea of res judicata comes into play. Parties to a lawsuit may file the
same suit again in an attempt to damage the other party’s reputation and obtain compensation
twice. Therefore, the principle of res judicata plays an important role in the Code of Civil
 5

Procedure code to prevent such overloads and unnecessary cases. According to ancient Hindu
law, the term “Purva Nyaya,” which means previous judgment, was used by Muslim and Hindu
jurists to refer to earlier res judicata. The nations of the European Continent and the
Commonwealth have agreed that a case cannot be tried twice once it has been tried once. The
United States Constitution’s Seventh Amendment is where the idea of res judicata first appeared.
It talks about how decisions made in a civil jury trial are final. A civil court decision is final and
cannot be appealed by another court unless certain requirements are met.

5. MEANING OF RES JUDICATA:

The term Res means, “subject matter,” and judicata means “decided”, together it means
“a matter decided” More simply, the matter was originally decided by the court, and the parties
involved in the current case have previously resolved it in another court. Because another court
has already made a decision in this case, the court will dismiss it. The principle of res judicata is
applicable to both civil and criminal law. No lawsuit has been tried in the past, either directly or
indirectly, and maybe tried again.

EXAMPLE:

Because “B” neglected to pay the rent, “A” filed a lawsuit against him. Given that the
land’s acreage was less than what was specified in the lease, “B” begged for a reduction in the
ground rent. The area was larger than what the lease said, the court determined. The rules of res
judicata will not be applied because the situation was one of excess.

In a specific case, ‘A’ new lawsuit was filed in which the defendants requested that the
court dismiss the lawsuit with the plea of res judicata. She was barred from bringing a claim of
res judicata because her previous claim was dismissed for fraud. The Court said that the defense
of res judicata must be proved by evidence.

6. PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA:

Natural justice is fundamental to the idea of res judicata. It protects the principles of
justice, finality, and judicial efficiency by acting as a barrier against the retrial of cases that have
been decided. Fundamental ideas like fairness, impartiality, and the right to a hearing are all
contained in natural justice. To guarantee stability and promote confidence in the legal system,
 6

res judicata prohibits the reopening of cases once a just and fair decision has been made. Res
judicata encourages the finality of rulings and avoids needless litigation under the principles of
natural justice. It respects the judicial system’s resources and the party’s time by prohibiting
them from re-litigating the same cases. This is acceptable under the fairness principle because it
prevents parties from having to repeatedly defend the same argument. The concept of finality,
which guarantees that parties receive a conclusion once a decision has been made after careful
examination, is represented by res judicata. This prevents undue harassment and gives them the
chance to go on.

The impartiality concept of natural justice and res judicata are closely related. Reopening
a case after it has been decided runs the risk of introducing bias from earlier proceedings. Res
judicata discourages parties from going to court repeatedly in the hopes of obtaining a different
judge who could offer a better result by prohibiting the re-litigation of the same case. Because it
stops parties from switching forums and upholds the original, unbiased ruling, this restriction
preserves the honesty of court decisions.

In addition, natural justice places an important value on the right to a fair trial, which is
summed up in the maxim audi alteram partem and guarantees that each party has an equal
chance to state their case. Res judicata maintains the finality of the hearing after this right has
been used and a competent authority has issued a verdict based on the merits of the case.
According to the idea, a decision was taken after a just and impartial process after the parties
were initially given a fair chance to be heard. Res judicata upholds this procedure and supports
the notion that justice, once performed, need not be continuously challenged by prohibiting re-
litigation.

7. REQUIREMENTS OF RES JUDICATA:

The principle of res judicata prohibits reopening cases on matters that a competent court
has already finally resolved. For res judicata to be applicable, certain requirements must be
fulfilled:

1. Parties identities:
The parties to the current lawsuit must be the same as those in the earlier
action, or they must be making claims in the same capacity or title. This
 7

guarantees that the parties or entities covered by the previous ruling will
be the same in the next case.
2. Identity of subject matter:
The problem or subject matter must be the same in the initial case and any
other cases that follow. In the previous procedure, the item had to be
“directly and substantially” in question, which meant that it was a major
issue that the court considered in its entirety.
3. Final Judgement on the merits:
The prior ruling had to be final and based on the case’s merits, not on
procedural considerations. This implies that the court had to have
considered all relevant matters in detail and made a conclusion that was
final.
4. Competency of Jurisdiction:
The Court or tribunal that made the first ruling needed to be properly
constituted in order to hear the case. The decision lacks the authority to
bind future cases on the same topic if the court lacks jurisdiction.
5. Opportunity to be heard:
In the previous processes, the parties must have been afforded reasonable
chance to submit their position. By ensuring that natural justice principles
are followed, both parties can be fully heard prior to a decision being
deemed final and binding.

Together, these components support judicial efficiency, avoid repeated litigation, and preserve
the idea of finality in court rulings. Res judicata is applicable when these requirements are met,
meaning that the case cannot be brought up again in the same parties' future court cases.

8. NATURE AND SCOPE OF RES JUDICATA:

The two ideas of claim exclusion and issue avoidance are included in res judicata. Issue
exclusion is also known as a secondary injunction. Parties cannot sue another person again after
the final decision on the basis of merits has arrived in civil litigation. On the other hand, problem
avoidance forbids the re-litigation of legal questions that the judge has previously decided in a
previous case.
 8

Res judicata is a legal doctrine that covers a wide range of legal areas. Its main objective
is to prevent parties from re-litigating a matter on the same issues once it has been decided. The
theory protects judicial uniformity, efficiency, and finality in civil, criminal, and administrative
processes.

Res judicata also applies to decisions issued by administrative bodies and quasi-judicial
tribunals. The idea of res judicata prohibits the parties from re-litigating identical issues before
another tribunal or court once an administrative judgment is made following a fair hearing. This
supports the function of specialized courts in resolving disputes within their areas of competence
and upholds the finality of administrative rulings.

9. DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA:

The double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects
persons from being put on a second trial after the case has been judged. This problem is therefore
addressed by the res judicata doctrine, which forbids any party from appealing a decision once it
has been given. The Civil Procedure Code, in Section 11, introduces the res judicata doctrine,
sometimes called the “rule of conclusiveness of Judgment.” The doctrine of res judicata was
explained in the case of:

1. SATYADHYAN GHOSAL

V.

DEORJIN DEBI

FACTS:

Satyadhyan Ghosal, the appellant, was a tenant in a property owned by Deorjin Debi, the
respondent. Deorjin Debi, the landlord, filed an eviction lawsuit against Satyadhyan Ghosal on
the basis of non-payment of rent and other violations of tenancy regulations. The appellant was
ordered to be evicted by the trial court after it decided in favor of the landlord.

Satyadhyan Ghosal, the tenant, filed an appeal of the ruling. He also submitted a request
for an extension of the eviction order’s execution during the appeals process. In order to allow
Satyadhyan Ghosal to continue on the property until the appeal was resolved, the court issued an
 9

interim stay. However, this temporary stay order was later revoked by the appellate court,
enabling the eviction to continue while the appeal was still pending.

Satyadhyan Ghosal responded by submitting a second request for a stay, arguing that the
first stay order’s cancellation was wrong. He contended that as long as the appeal was pending,
he should be granted a stay of the eviction order. His second application was denied by the court,
which noted that the case had already been decided in the earlier procedures. Afterward,
Satyadhyan Ghosal requested the Supreme Court to set aside the decision.1

ISSUE:

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether temporary orders, including the
revocation of a stay order while an appeal was pending, may be subject to the res judicata
doctrine.

HELD:

The Supreme Court decided that res judicata does apply to interim decisions as long as
such orders were determined in a judicial manner by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court
made it clear that a procedural issue, such as the revocation of a stay order, cannot be brought up
again within the same legal proceeding once it has already been determined. This ruling upholds
the finality and efficiency of the legal system by guaranteeing that procedural orders are
followed and are not continuously appealed.1

The doctrine of res judicata says

1. That no person should be disputed twice for the same reason.

2. It is the State that decides there should be an end to litigation.

3. A judicial decision must be accepted as the correct decision.1

1. AIR 1960 SC 941.

 10

10. RES JUDICATA UNDER CPC AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:

UNDER CPC:

According to Section 11 of the CPC, a matter cannot be the subject of another lawsuit
once it has been completely resolved by a court. Courts are not allowed to hear cases if a
different court has previously issued a final ruling on a directly and technically at-issue topic in a
prior case.

The 1976 Amendment Act placed execution procedures under the jurisdiction of this Act
and expanded the scope of Section 11. Section 11’s concept of res judicata is not completely
inclusive. Three judicial maxims serve as the foundation for the reasoning behind the res judicata
principle:

1. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa:

According to this maxim, no one will face legal action for the same offense again.
The goal of this approach is a shield a violator from needless legal action. Not
harassing legal action against the offender, but reformation is the goal of the
criminal justice system.
2. Res judicata pro Veritate accipitur:
A court’s ruling must be properly accepted as true. An endless cycle of litigation
will result in uncertainty and confusion if the court’s ruling is not accepted as
final.
3. Interest republicae ut sit finis litium:
The state’s interest is in putting a stop to lawsuits. The nation’s public policy
stipulates that an excessive number of lawsuits related to the same issue shouldn’t
overload the legal system.

The idea of res judicata is global due to the jurisprudential importance of these three elements.

UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:

The organization, duties, and authority of the administrative organs are all covered under
administrative law. Regulatory law is upheld by a government agency. The government agency is
the source of the law’s authority to impose regulations. This is applicable to all public servants
 11

and organizations. An administrative body of government may adopt or enforce a certain policy.
In legal terms, it is regarded as an element of public law. Unlike the legislative and judicial
branches, the administrative branch needs the ability to enact rules and regulations that are based
on granting licenses and permissions. The fundamental principles of that rule are that no one
shall be denied their rights or be denied a hearing and that no one may sit as a judge in a matter
by themselves.

Res judicata was taken from the Civil Procedure Code and serves as a foundational concept for
administrative law.

11. EXCEPTIONS:

Even being a powerful theory, res judicata has certain exceptions:

1. Fraud or collusion:
Res judicata may not apply if the first decision was made by fraud or collusion, as
the ruling would be deemed void.
2. Change in circumstances:
The previous ruling, a new lawsuit may continue if financial new facts come to
light or the situation strongly shifts.
3. Violation of Fundamental Rights:
Indian courts have the authority to re-examine a matter in order to ensure justice,
even in circumstances when the matter has already been determined. This
especially true in matters concerning fundamental rights.
4. Public Interest:
In order to preserve justice, courts can reject res judicata in situations involving
important constitutional problems or the public interest.
 12

12. CASE LAWS:

2. DARYAO

V.

STATE OF U.P.

FACTS:

The petitioners, including Daryao, filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court
challenging the legality of their eviction orders on the grounds that their fundamental rights had
been violated. After considering the issue on its merits, the High Court denied these petitions.1

Following the High Court’s dismissal of their case, the petitioners filed new writ petitions
with the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 32, which gives them the ability to petition
the Supreme Court directly to have their basic rights protected. They requested relief based on
the identical arguments put out by the High Court.2

ISSUE:

Whether the theory of res judicata may be applied to writ petitions filed under Article 32
when the identical matter had already been addressed by a High Court under Article 226 was the
main question before the Supreme Court.

HELD:

The Supreme Court ruled that writ petitions filed under the Constitution are subject to the
res judicata concept. It concluded that after a High Court has heard and decided a writ petition
based on a specific claim of fundamental rights, the same issue cannot be re-litigated before the
Supreme Court through a new writ petition under Article 32. The Court warned that permitting
petitioners to submit identical petitions more than once would compromise the validity of court
rulings and result in judicial abuse.2

2.1961 AIR 1457, SCR (1) 574

 13

The Court did point out an exception from this rule, though. It decided that res judicata
would not apply and the petitioner might go for a remedy under Article 32, if the previous
dismissal of a writ petition by a High Court was not on the merits-for instance, if it was
dismissed because of procedural or jurisdictional errors.2

3. FORWARD CONSTRUCTION Co.

V.

PRABHAT MANDAL (1986)

FACTS:

Forward Construction Co. worked on the development of a specific piece of land. The
building was opposed by Prabhat Mandal, a registered society, in a writ suit brought before the
Bombay High Court. The association raised several issues with the construction, including
suspected violation of zonal distribution and development restrictions. The High Court denied
the petition, ruling that Forward Construction Co. had not broken any laws and that the
construction was acceptable.3

After the dismissal, a different association challenged the Forward Construction Co.’s
construction once more in a new writ suit that was filed in the Bombay High Court based on the
same grounds. The High Court also denied this plea. Disappointed by the earlier rulings, Prabhat
Mandal tried to start a new legal battle by challenging the construction in a Supreme Court
special leave application. The issue emerged as to whether the res judicata theory allowed for or
prohibited this new attempt.3

ISSUE:

Whether the Public interest lawsuits may be barred from being filed again on the same
topic by several associations or groups under the theory of res judicata, when the High Court had
already decided the case.

HELD:

The Supreme Court ruled that Public Interest Litigations are governed by the law of res
judicata. This means that a party cannot raise the same issue again under the idea of public
 14

interest by just renaming the association or group that is representing it. Allowing such repeated
litigation, the Court argued, might end up in unnecessary delays, failure, and shame for final
decisions by judges.

The Court made it clear that additional parties or people claiming to represent the same
public interest cannot re-litigate a dispute related to public interest once it has been decided and
settled. The Court made clear that any additional parties making a claim under the same title or
interest are also covered by res judicata, along with the parties involved in the case. Given that
they reflect the same common interest, the Court confirmed the prohibition on any further
petitions on the same issue or matter.3

4. MATHURA PRASAD BAJOO JAISWAL

V.

DOSSIBAI N.B. JEEJEEBHOY (1970)

FACTS:

The respondent, Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, had leased a property to the appellant,
Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal. They had a disagreement about the terms of the lease, namely
whether the property was subjected to the requirements of the 1974 Bombay Rent Act.

Based on its understanding of the law, the court in a previous litigation determined that
the buildings in question were not covered by the Bombay Rent Act. Due to this decision,
Mathura Prasad was basically denied the Act’s tenant safeguards, including rent control and
eviction immunity. Later, Mathura Prasad filed a second lawsuit, this time claiming that the
properties were covered by the Bombay Rent Act. Dossibai claimed the defense of res judicata,
arguing that the Act’s application could not be re-litigated because it had already been resolved in
the prior case.4

ISSUE:

Whether the given prior decision was improperly decided and the doctrine of res judicata
prohibits the re-litigation of the dispute of application of the Bombay Rent Act to the properties.
 15

HELD:

The Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not apply to cases involving just legal
issues, especially where the prior case’s decision was incorrect. The Court observed that even
though multiple issues of law and evidence are covered by res judicata, pre-questions of law
involving statutory interpretation are open to re-trial.

The Court reasoned that justice would be denied if an incorrect reading of the law were
permitted to continue as valid. Because the prior decision involved a legal issue that was
essential to the decision, Mathura Prasad was allowed to challenge the application of the
Bombay Rent Act again.4

3. 1986 AIR 391, SCR (1) 100.

4. 1970 AIR 2355, 1971 SCR (3) 830.
 16

13. CONCLUSION:

A ruling that can be against the law might also be subject to res judicata. The long-
standing principle of res judicata governs the broad impact of one trial’s decision on upcoming
proceedings. It covers issues that should be challenged in addition to those that are bar-related.
For example, if a court of law or equity has rejected a matter on a certain issue and is not
considered a final decision, then res judicata will theoretically apply even if it is unjustified. If
the plaintiff is not allowed to continue legal action even if the chancellor rejects a fair settlement
based on a principle, according to the decision of the court.

The easiest way to understand the Doctrine of Res judicata is as a limitation on the ability
of any party to “move the clock back” while the case is pending. Public Interest lawsuits are
among the many cases that fall under the broad concept of res judicata. This concept covers a
wide range of topics related to society and individuals and can be used outside of the Code of
Civil Procedure. With time, the scope and depth have increased, and the Supreme Court’s
decisions have expanded the regions.
 17

14. REFERENCES:

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/overview-on-doctrine-of-res-judicata/#Res_Judicata_meaning

2. Indiankanoon.com

3. www.legalserviceindia.com

4. https://www.thelawadvice.com/articles/res-judicata-under-the-code-of-civil-procedure-
cpc

5. https://www.freelaw.in/legalarticles/Key-Principles-and-Applicability-of-Res-Judicata

6. https://lawbhoomi.com/res-judicata-section-11-of-code-of-civil-procedure/

7. C. K. Takwani Administrative Law