Brief history and origin of Res Judicata

The concept of res judicata has evolved from the English Common Law
System. The Common Law system has been derived from the overriding
concept of judicial consistency. Res judicata took its place first in the Code of
Civil Procedure from Common Law and then into the Indian Legal System. If
either of the parties in a case approaches the same court for the judgment of
the same issue then the suit will be struck by the doctrine of res judicata. Res
judicata plays a role in administrative law as well. It helps to administer how
efficiently the Judiciary works and disposes of the case. The doctrine of res
judicata becomes applicable where there is more than one petition filed in
the same or in some other court of India with the same parties and same
facts. The parties involved in a case may file the same suit again just to
harass the reputation of the opposite party and may do to get compensation
twice. So to prevent such overloads and extra cases, the doctrine of res
judicata plays a major role and importance in the Code of Civil Procedure.

Earlier res judicata was termed as Purva Nyaya or former judgment by the
Hindu lawyers and Muslim jurists according to ancient Hindu Law. The
countries of the Commonwealth and the European Continent have accepted
that once the matter has been brought to trial once, it must not be tried
again. The principle of res judicata is originated from the Seventh
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It addresses the finality of judgments in
a civil jury trial. Once a court has rendered a verdict in a civil trial, it cannot
be changed by another court except there are very specific conditions.

Res Judicata meaning

Res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or decided and
together it means “a matter adjudged”.

In simpler words, the thing has been judged by the court, the issue before a
court has already been decided by another court and between the same
parties. Hence, the court will dismiss the case as it has been decided by
another court. Res judicata applies to both civil and criminal legal systems.
No suit which has been directly or indirectly tried in a former suit can be tried
again.

Res Judicata example

 ‘A’ sued ‘B’ as he didn’t pay rent. ‘B’ pleaded for the lessening of
rent on the ground as the area of the land was less than the
mentioned on the lease. The Court found that the area was greater
than shown in the lease. The area was excess and the principles of
res judicata will not be applied.
 In a case, ‘A’ new lawsuit was filed in which the defendants
requested that the Court dismiss the lawsuit with a 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 defence of res judicata must be proved by evidence.

Principle of Res Judicata

The principle of res judicata seeks to promote the fair administration of
justice and honesty and to prevent the law from abuse. The principle of
res judicata applies when a litigant attempts to file a subsequent lawsuit on
the same matter, after having received a judgment in a previous case
involving the same parties. In many jurisdictions, this applies not only to the
specific claims made in the first case but also to claims that could have been
made during the same case.

Pre-requisites for Res Judicata

Prerequisites of res judicata includes:

 A judicial decision by proficient court or tribunal,

 Final and binding and
 Any decision made on the merits
 A fair hearing
 Earlier decision right or wrong is not relevant

Nature and Scope of Res Judicata

Res judicata includes two concepts of claim preclusion and issue preclusion.
Issue preclusion is also known as collateral estoppel. Parties cannot sue each
other again after the final judgment on the basis of merits has reached in civil
litigation. For example, if a plaintiff wins or loses a case against the
defendant in the case say A, he cannot probably sue the defendant again in
case B based on the same facts and events. Not even in a different court with
the same facts and events. Whereas in issue preclusion it prohibits the re-
litigation of issues of law that have already been determined by the judge as
part of an earlier case.

The scope has been decided in the case of Gulam Abbas v. State of Uttar
Pradesh. In this case the court incorporated the rules as evidence as a plea of
an issue already tried in an earlier case. Judgment of this case was difficult as
the judges should apply res judicata. It was decided that res judicata is not
exhaustive and even if the matter is not directly covered under the provisions
of the section it will be considered as a case of res judicata on general
principles.

Rationale
The principle of res judicata is founded upon the principles of justice, equity,
and good conscience and it applies to various civil suits and criminal
proceedings. The purpose of this principle was to inculcate finality into
litigation.

Failure to Apply
When a court fails to apply Res Judicata and renders a divergent verdict on
the same claim or issue and if the third court faces the same issue, it will
apply a “last in time” rule. It gives effect to the later judgment and it does not
matter about the result that came differently in the second time. This
situation 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 to apply
it, whether to recognize it in the first place.

Doctrine of Res Judicata

The double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution protects people from being put on a second trial after the case
has been judged. So the doctrine of res judicata addresses this issue and it
bars any party to retry a judgment once it has been decided.

Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Court incorporates the doctrine of res

judicata also known as “ rule of conclusiveness of judgment”. The doctrine of
res judicata has been explained in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin
Debi. The judgment of the court was delivered by Das Gupta, J. An appeal
was made by landlords who attained a decree for ejectment against the
tenants who were Deorajin Debi and her minor son. However, they have not
been yet able to get possession in execution soon after the decree was
made. An application was made by the tenant under Section 28 of the
Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act and alleged that they were the Thika tenants.
This application was resisted by the landlords saying they were not Thika
Tenants within the meaning of the Act.

The tenants moved to the High Court of Calcutta under the Civil Procedure
Code. The court applied the principle of res judicata to achieve the finality in
litigation. The result came that the original court, as well as the higher court,
can proceed for any future litigation on the basis that the previous decision
was correct.
The doctrine of res judicata says –

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

 It is the State that decides there should be an end to a litigation
 A judicial decision must be accepted as the correct decision.

Res judicata under CPC

Section 11 of the CPC states that once an issue has been finally decided by a
court, it cannot be made the subject matter of another suit. The Courts are
barred from entertaining suits in which the matter directly and substantially
at issue has already been finally decided by another court in a previous suit.

The 1976 Amendment Act expanded the scope of Section 11 and brought
execution proceedings within the purview of this Act. The definition of res
judicata provided under Section 11 is not exhaustive.

The rationale of the principle of res judicata can be traced to three judicial
maxims:

 Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa: This maxim
means no person shall be subject to prosecution for the same action
twice. This principle aims to protect an offender from frivolous
litigation. The aim of the criminal justice system is reformation, not
vexatious litigation against the offender.
 Res judicata pro veritate accipitur: A decision of a judicial
authority must be duly accepted as correct. If the judicial decision is
not respected as conclusive, then there will be indefinite litigation,
which will lead to confusion and chaos.
 Interest republicae ut sit finis litium: The interest of state lies in
an end to litigation. It is a part of the public policy of the country
that the courts should not be overburdened by the piling up of
repeated suits over the same subject matter.
The jurisprudential significance of these three principles makes res judicata a
universal concept.

Directly and substantially in issue

Merely because a matter was in issue in a former suit would not suffice to
invoke the doctrine of res judicata. It is necessary that the matter be directly
and substantially in issue in the previous suit. It should have been alleged by
one party and admitted or denied by the other party. The admission or denial
may be done expressly or by necessary implication.
The doctrine of res judicata applies where the issues in the two suits are
identical in nature. Thus, even if the cause of action, object, and relief
claimed in the two suits are distinct, the doctrine of res judicata can be
invoked so long as the issues are identical.

A suit may also involve certain subsidiary issues that are secondary to the
primary issues. Those issues that are ancillary to the substantial and direct
issues are known as collateral or incidental issues. The doctrine of res
judicata cannot be invoked with respect to these collateral or incidental
issues.

Decision on merits
The decision of a court will operate as res judicata only if it is given on the
merits of the case. Thus, if a suit is dismissed due to an absence of
jurisdiction or if a compromise decree is passed by the court, then such a
dismissal or suit will not operate as res judicata. Similarly, if a suit is
dismissed on procedural grounds such as misjoinder of parties or due to
failure in furnishing security, then such a decision would not operate as res
judicata.

Constructive Res Judicata

The rule of constructive res judicata in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code
is an artificial form of res judicata. It provides that if a plea has been taken by
a party in a proceeding between him and the defendant he will not be
permitted to take pleas against the same party in the following proceeding
with reference to the same matter. It is opposed to public policies on which
the principle of res judicata is based. It would mean harassment and hardship
to the defendant. The rule of constructive res judicata helps in raising the
bar. Hence this rule is known as the rule of constructive res judicata which in
reality is an aspect of augmentation of the general principles of res judicata.

In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain , M was a sub-

inspector and was dismissed from the service of D.I.G. he challenged the
order of dismissal by filing a writ petition in the High Court. He said that he
did not get a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the passing of the
order. However, the argument was negatived and the petition was dismissed.
He again filed a petition on the ground that he was appointed by the I.G.P.
and had no power to dismiss him. The defendant argued that the suit was
barred by constructive res judicata. However, the trial court, the first
appellate court as well as the High Court held that the suit was not barred by
the doctrine of res judicata. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred
by constructive res judicata as the plea was within the knowledge of the
plaintiff, M and he could have taken this argument in his earlier suit.
The doctrine of constructive res judicata has been incorporated in
Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Explanation
IV provides that all those matters that ought to have been made a ground of
defence or attached to a suit but were omitted, will also be deemed to have
been directly or substantially in issue in such a suit. If a party fails to raise a
reasonable ground of defence or attack during a suit, then such an issue is
presumed to have been decided against the defaulting party.

Every judicial action has its foundation in a cause of action. When the courts
pronounce a final order, the cause of action is deemed extinguished. Thus,
the same cause of action cannot be agitated again in order to claim relief
that should have been claimed in the initial suit. The cause of action cannot
survive the judgement and is deemed to have been merged in the
judgement.

Res Judicata and Estoppel

Estoppel means the principle which prevents a person from asserting
something that is contrary to what is implied by a previous action. It deals
in Section 115 to Section 117 of the Indian Evidence act. The rule of
constructive res judicata is the rule of estoppel. In some areas the doctrine of
res judicata differs from the doctrine of estoppel –

 Estoppel flows from the act of parties whereas res judicata is the
result of the decision of the court.
 Estoppel proceeds upon the doctrine of equity, a person has induced
another to alter his position to his disadvantage can not turn around
and take advantage of such alteration. In other words, res judicata
bars multiplicity of suits and estoppel precludes multiplicity of
representation of cases.
 Estoppel is a rule of evidence and is enough for the party whereas
res judicata expels the jurisdiction of a court to try a case and
prevents an enquiry at the threshold (in limine).
 Res judicata forbidden a person averring the same thing twice in the
litigations and estoppel prevents the person from saying two
opposite things at a time.
 According to the principle of res judicata, it presumes the truth of
decision in the former suit while the rule of estoppel precludes the
party ton deny what he or she has once called truth.
o The object of res sub judice is to prevent two concurrent
courts from entertaining the same suit simultaneously. This
ensures that two parallel litigations are not carried on with
respect to the same subject matter and the same relief.
The doctrine of res judicata, on the other hand, is to
prevent a subsequent suit from being filed over a subject
matter that has already been decided by a competent
court.
The doctrine of res subjudice is contained in Section 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. It provides that a court shall not admit a suit whose subject
matter is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit.

Res judicata and Res Subjudice

The doctrine of res judicata and res subjudice varies in some factors –

 Res sub judice applies to a matter that is pending trial whereas res
judicata applies to a matter adjudicated or arbitrated.
 Res subjudice prohibits the trial of a suit that is pending decision in a
previous suit whereas res judicata prohibits the trial of a suit that
has been decided in a former suit.

Res judicata and suit withdrawal

The principle of res judicata will also apply where a suit has been withdrawn
under Order 23, Rule 1 without the prior permission of the court. Order 23,
Rule 1, gives the plaintiff the option to withdraw or abandon, at any time
after the suit has been instituted, his claims. However, the liberty under
Order 23 Rule 1 cannot be exercised for the purpose of instituting a fresh suit
on the same subject matter after withdrawing the current suit.

If any party withdraws the suit or abandons the claims, then it will be barred
by the principle of res judicata from instituting a fresh suit with respect to the
same claims.

However, if the party obtains the express permission of the court before
withdrawing the claims and the court authorises the party to institute a fresh
suit, then the same would not be barred by res judicata.

Res judicata and Issue Estoppel

A person who has once been tried by a court of proficient jurisdiction for an
offence and convicted of that offence cannot be tried again for the same
offence as long as acquittal operates. This is given under Section 300(1) of
the Civil Procedure Court. A party cannot proceed to reopen the case if the
matter is finally decided by a competent or proficient court. This principle
applies to criminal proceedings and it is not allowed in the stage of the same
proceedings to try a person for an offence for which he has been acquitted.
Res Judicata and Stare Decisis
Res judicata means a case that has already been decided or a matter settled
by a decision or judgment. Res judicata and stare decisis both are related to
matters of adjudication (arbitration). Stare decisis rests on legal principles
whereas res judicata is based on the conclusiveness of judgment. Res
judicata binds the parties while stare decisis operates between strangers and
bins the courts to take a contrary view on the law already decided. Stare
decisis is mostly about legal principle while res judicata relates to
controversy.

Res judicata and writ petition

The doctrine of res judicata also applies to writ petitions filed under
Articles 32 and 226. If this doctrine is not applied to writ petitions, then it
would be open to parties to challenge every decided issue through a writ
petition, and there would be no end to litigation.

Thus, if any issue has been raised before and decided by the Supreme Court
under Article 32, then the same issue cannot be raised by the same parties
before the High Court under Article 226. Similarly, if any issue has been
decided by the High Court under Article 226, then a writ petition under Article
32 concerning the same issue and involving the same parties would be
barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

However, if any writ petition is dismissed by the High Court on any procedural
grounds due to the laches of the parties, then the same would not be
sufficient to invoke res judicata, and such a dismissal order would not bar an
alternate remedy under Article 32. Similarly, if a petition is dismissed
in limine (at the very outset) and no speaking order is made by the court,
then such a dismissal would not involve the bar of res judicata.

Lastly, if a writ petition under Article 226 is withdrawn, then there would be
no bar of res judicata as there would be no judgment on the merits of the
case.

Representative suit
A representative suit can be filed where numerous parties have a common
interest and the court permits one or a few of them to collectively represent
the interests of all the parties. The purpose of a representative suit is to avoid
complex litigation. A representative suit can be filed under Order I Rule 8 of
CPC.
The decision made in a representative suit is binding on all the parties whose
interests were represented in the suit. Explanation VI to Section 11 of the
CPC states that where bona fide litigation is initiated in respect of a common
private right or a public right, the outcome of such litigation would operate as
res judicata on all persons having an interest in that right. It is not necessary
that all the interested parties be named in the litigation. The only prerequisite
is that the interests of these persons must have been represented in a bona
fide manner by the institutor of the litigation.

What is Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel?

The doctrine of collateral estoppel says that an issue or case that has been
litigated cannot be litigated again. For collateral estoppel to apply, the
following requirements are required.

The issue in the first and second case is the same; The party against whom
the doctrine is invoked had the full opportunity to litigate the issue; That
party actually litigated the issue; The issue litigated must have been
necessary to the final judgment.

The doctrine of res judicata bars the re-litigation of a claim that has already
been litigated. There are four factors that must be satisfied for res judicata to
apply:

 A previous case in which the same claim was raised or could have
been raised;
 The judgment in the prior case involved the same parties or their
privies;
 The previous case was resolved by a final judgment on the merits;
 The parties should have a fair opportunity to be heard.
For example, Abela sued John who is a supervisor for sexually harassing her
and due to that, she had to quit her job. Abela provided the evidence by
producing emails written by him. But John argued that the emails were not
real but the judge said that the emails were real and could be submitted as
evidence. After a few months after the trial, Abela filed a lawsuit against her
employer as he did not take any action about the complaint. If the emails
that were submitted by Abela, were not genuine the issue would fall under
collateral estoppel. The issue of authenticity of the emails was already
decided in the previous case and hence the court cannot redecide the issue.

Res Judicata landmark cases

Brobston v. Darby Borough

In the case of Brobston v. Darby Borough, Brobston was the plaintiff who was
injured while driving a vehicle on a public highway in the Borough of Darby.
Due to a transit company that was occupying the street, the steering wheel
of the machine operating pulled by the driver’s hand. This resulted in injury
to the complainant. A suit was filed against the street railway in the Court of
Philadelphia to recover damages. It was proved that negligence was there on
the part of both the parties also known as contributory negligence. The
judgment was passed in favour of the defendant. Later action was again
brought against the same defendant based on the same cause of action and
against the same transit company. The judgment in the first proceeding was
brought to the attention of the court. The plaintiff admitted that Brobston was
the same person who was the plaintiff in the action brought earlier in
Philadelphia.

The action was brought for injuries occurring at the same place and the
verdict of the court was in favour of the defendant. The facts and cause of
action were the same but the only difference was the name of the defendant.
The legal question involved was what are the rights of the plaintiff in this
case. The court refused the facts which were proven by the counsel. Hence a
nonsuit was entered because of the earlier judgment. The plaintiff should
have been permitted to call the witness but no merit was seen.

These conditions were entered in the record to enable the Court to pass the
legal question involved. The plaintiff had the right to recover under the
circumstances. The counsel made an offer to prove the facts which the court
had refused to do. A complaint was made that the plaintiff must have been
permitted to call the witness to establish the matters. The facts were
essential for the legal determination of liability before the court and consent
of both the parties were needed.

Lowe v. Haggerty
In the case of Lowe v. Haggerty, a question was raised considering the effect
of former judgment for defendant when he was sued by the guest. It was held
that a suit was bar by the driver of the car which had been struck by any
other person. There was no previous record that disclosed what was in the
first proceeding. It was held that it was not possible to determine what was
the issue involved in the previous suit. A different situation was there the
court disposed of the record made by the parties. Nonsuit was not granted in
this case and the plaintiff’s appeal was refused.

Henderson v. Henderson
Henderson v Henderson was a case in which the English Court confirmed that
a party can not raise a claim in litigation which was raised in the previous
suit. In 1808, two brothers Bethel and Jordan Henderson became business
partners and they operated in both Bristol and Newfoundland. In 1817, their
father died on a date that was not recorded. The wife of Jordan Henderson
was appointed as the administrator and she brought legal proceedings in the
Court. She also brought separate proceedings and claimed that he had failed
to provide an account as executor of the will. The Court of Appeal held that
there was no estoppel by convention and that the proceedings were an abuse
under the rule in Henderson v Henderson. The Court of Appeal held that just
one of Mr Johnson’s claims should be struck out for a reflective loss.

Res Judicata landmark cases in India

Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh

In the historic case of Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the doctrine of res
judicata is of universal application was established. The Supreme Court of
India placed the doctrine of res judicata on a still broader foundation. In this
case, petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad under
Article 226 of the Constitution. But the suit was dismissed. Then they filed
independent petitions in the Supreme Court under the writ jurisdiction of
Article 32 of the Constitution. The defendants raised an objection regarding
the petition by asserting that the prior decision of the High Court would be
operated as res judicata to a petition under Article 32. The Supreme Court
dismissed and disagreed with the petitions.

The court held that the rule of res judicata applies to a petition under Article
32 of the Constitution. If a petition is filed by the petitioner in the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution and it is dismissed on the basis of
merits, it would be operated as res judicata to bar a similar petition in the
Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Devilal Modi vs. Sales Tax Officer

In the leading case of Devilal Modi vs. STO, B challenged the validity of an
order of assessment under Article 226. The petition was dismissed on the
basis of merits. The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal that was made
against the order on the basis of merits. B again filed another writ petition in
the same High Court against the same order of assessment. This time the
petition was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the
petition was barred by the principle of res judicata.

Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh

A peculiar problem arose in the case of Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh. A filed a
civil suit, a contention regarding the arbitration of the Court was taken by B.
The objection was sustained and the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for
the presentation. The Revenue Court did not have any jurisdiction when A
approached the Revenue Court so he returned the petition. Once again A
filed a suit in the Civil Court. B contended that the suit was barred by the
doctrine of res judicata.

Mathura Prasad v. Dossabai N.B. Jeejeebhoy

In the case of Mathura Prasad v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, it was held that
res judicata constitutes between the parties to the previous case and cannot
move again in collateral proceedings. Generally, a decision by a competent
court operates as res judicata even on point of law. However, a question of
law which is not related to facts that gives rise to the right, will not operate
as res judicata. When the cause of action is different or the law is different,
the decision has been already altered by an authority. The decision made will
be declared as valid and res judicata will not operate in the subsequent
proceeding.

Exceptions to res judicata

Cases where Res Judicata does not apply

The principle of res judicata does not apply in the Writ of Habeas Corpus as
far as High Courts are concerned. Article 32 gives power to the Supreme
Court to issue writs and some power is given to High Courts under Article
226. The Courts need to give proper reasoning while applying the doctrine of
res judicata. There are some exceptions to res judicata which allow the party
to challenge the validity of the original judgment even outside the appeals.
These exceptions are usually known as collateral attacks and are based on
jurisdictional issues. It is not based on the wisdom of the earlier decision of
the court but the authority to issue it. Res judicata may not be applicable
when cases appear that they need relitigation.

Pure question of law

The principle of res judicata does not apply to pure questions of law. For
example, if any decision is rendered by a court of incompetent jurisdiction, a
challenge to the jurisdiction of the court, being a pure question of law, would
not be barred by res judicata. If a court does have the competent jurisdiction
to try a case, then the decision rendered by it cannot be accorded finality by
relying on the principle of res judicata. Thus, the jurisdiction of the court,
being a pure question of law, can always be challenged in a subsequent suit.
Similarly, if any other pure question of law is erroneously decided by a court,
then such erroneous interpretation can be challenged in a subsequent suit,
and it would not be barred by res judicata.

Instalment Supply private limited vs. Union of

India
In cases of income tax or sales tax, the doctrine of res judicata does not
apply. It was discussed in the case of Instalment Supply private limited vs.
Union of India where the Supreme Court held that assessment of each year is
final for that year and it will not govern in the subsequent years. As it
determines the tax only for that particular period.

P. Bandhopadhya and others v. Union of India

and others
In the case of P. Bandhopadhya and others v. Union of India and others, The
appeal was made in the Bombay High Court and the appellants asserted that
they will be entitled to receive an amount as damages. The Supreme Court
bench held that the appellants were not entitled to receive damages which
were pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules 1972. They were entitled
to receive benefits as the case was barred by the principle of res judicata.

In the case of Public Interest Litigation, the doctrine of res judicata does not
apply. As the primary object of res judicata is to bring an end to litigation so
there is no reason to extend the principle of public interest litigation.

Dismissal of special leave petition in limine does not operate as res judicata
between the parties. A fresh petition will not be filed either under Article 32
or under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Beliram and Brothers v. Chaudhari Mohammed

Afzal
In the case of Beliram and Brothers v. Chaudhari Mohammed Afzal, it was
held that a minors suit cannot be brought by the guardian of the minors.
However, it was brought in collaboration with the defendants and the decree
obtained was by fraud within the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it will not
operate res judicata.
Jallur Venkata Seshayya v. Thadviconda
Koteswara Rao
In the case of Jallur Venkata Seshayya vs. Thadviconda Koteswara Rao , a suit
was filed in the Court so that certain temples are called public temples. A
similar suit was dismissed by the Court two years ago and the plaintiff
contended that it was negligence on the part of the plaintiffs (of the previous
suit) and therefore the doctrine of res judicata can not be applied. However,
the privy council said that the documents were suppressed which means that
the plaintiff in the earlier suit had bona fide intention( something that is
genuine and there is no intention to deceive).

Can Res Judicata be waived?

In the case of P.C. Ray and Company Private Limited v. Union of India it was
held that the plea of res judicata may be waived by a party to a proceeding. If
a defendant does not raise the defence of res judicata then it will be waived.
The principle of res judicata belongs to the procedure and either party can
waive the plea of res judicata. The court can decline the question of res
judicata on the ground that it has not been raised in the proceedings.

How to defeat Res Judicata?

The doctrine of res judicata would not apply to the case until the conditions
are met. The essential condition for the applicability is that the succeeding
suit or proceeding is founded on the same cause of action on which the
former suit was founded. The principle of res judicata can be defeated when
the party has filed the suit on a reasonable ground for example in case a
public interest litigation has been filed there is no reason not to extend the
doctrine of res judicata. The PIL has been filed with a bona fide intention and
the litigation cannot end.

The only possibility for defeating res judicata statutorily has been provided
under Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This Section states that in
a suit filed in reference to a particular subject matter, a prior judgement on
the same subject matter would not be relevant if any of the parties was able
to establish that the prior judgement was delivered by an incompetent court
or was based on fraud and collusion.

The principle contained in Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has
been incorporated in Section 38 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023.
Res judicata as a concept under administrative
law
Administrative Law deals with the structure, functions, and powers of the
organs of administration. Administrative Law is also known as regulatory law
and it is enforced by some type of government body. The law derives its
power to enforce regulation from the government body. This applies to all
public officials and agencies. An administrative body of government may
rulemaking or enforce a specific agenda. It is technically considered as a
branch of public law. The administrative authority is different from the
legislative and judicial authority and necessitates the power to issue rules
and regulations that are based on grant licenses and permits. The basic
principles of this law are that no person shall be unheard or deprived of his
right and a person cannot be a judge on his own in a case.

Res judicata works as a working principle under administrative law and has
been adopted from the Civil Procedure Code.

Criticism to Res Judicata

Res judicata can also be applied to judgment that may be contrary to law.
The doctrine of res judicata has been used for a long time and it encloses the
general effect of one judgement upon another trial or proceeding. It includes
matters not only those of bar but also those matters which should be
litigated. For example, if a case has been dismissed on a specific ground by a
court of law or equity and it is not deemed as a final judgment and
technically res judicata will apply but it is not justified. If the chancellor has
denied equitable relief on a principle but it was held by the court that the
plaintiff is barred from proceeding as a legal remedy. Most of the equity
cases involve res judicata and do not get beyond collateral estoppel. As it
raises the difficulty of overlapping more than the failure to litigate issues.

The title to real estate and the right to collect rent depended upon one and
the same construction of a will. In an interpleader over the rents, A got the
decree. B appealed, without supersedeas, and secured a reversal, but, before
his appeal was decided, A had sued him in ejectment, invoking the decree,
and recovered a judgment for the real estate. B did not appeal from this
judgment, but, after the reversal of the decree, he sued A in ejectment for
the land, relying upon the reversal.

Conclusion
The Doctrine of Res Judicata can be understood as something which restricts
either party to “move the clock back” during the pendency of the
proceedings. The extent of res judicata is wide and it includes a lot of things
which even include Public Interest Litigations. This doctrine can be applied
outside the Code of Civil Procedure and covers a lot of areas which are
related to the society and people. The scope and the extent have widened
with the passage of time and the Supreme Court has elongated the areas
with its judgments.