Rule of conclusiveness

Rule of conclusiveness

Doctrine of res-judicata is based on the Rule of conclusiveness of finality of the judgment. Once a particular matter between two parties has been finally heard and decided, the very same matter cannot be reopened again in another suit between the same parties. Doctrine of res-judicata is a universal doctrine laying down the finality of litigation between the parties. When a particular decision has become final and binding between the parties, it can't be disturbed even on the ground that such decision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, i.e., either of the parties will not be permitted to reopen the issue decided by such decision on the ground that such decision violates the equity clause under the constitution [Supreme Court Employees Association v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 334]. Rule of res-judicata is not a technical Rule, but a Rule of public policy, which is founded on justice, equity and good conscience [Gulam Abbas v. State of UP AIR 1981 SC 2198]. The best method to decide the question of res-judicata is first to determine the case of the parties as put forward in their respective pleadings of their previous suits, and then to find out as to what had been decided by the judgment which operates as res-judicata. [Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa AIR 1976 SC 1569]. To apply Section 11, the following conditions must be proved

• that the litigating parties must be the same, or must be claiming under them.
• That the subject matter of the suit must be identical.
• That the matter has been finally adjudicated between the parties.
• That the court which decided the 'lis' must be a competent court

The doctrine of res-judicata is embodied in Sec. 11 of the Code of the Civil Procedure. Res-judicata or the Rule of conclusiveness of judgment is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. When a matter, whether as a question of fact or on a question of law, has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceedings, and the said decision is final, either because of no appeal or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies from that judgment, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceedings between the parties to canvass or raise the matter again. Sec. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that, "no court shall try any 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, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court". The doctrine of res-judicata is based on three golden principles; that

• No man should be vexed twice for the same cause;
• It is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a litigation;
• A judicial decision should be accepted as a final one and correct.

Every matter decided in a former suit will operate as res-judicata, in a subsequent suit. To involve the provisions of Sec. 11, the following conditions must apply.

• There must be an earlier suit, and in that suit the same matter was directly and substantially in issue : That means, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or the issue must be same matter which was subsequently in issue either actually or constructively in the former suit.
• The same parties : To apply the doctrine of res judicata the former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim.
• They must be litigating under the same title in the former suit : Same title means same legal capacity.
• Competency of the Court: The decision of the previous suit must be passed by a competent court. That is, the court which decided the former suit must be a court of competent jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such an issue is raised subsequently. If the previous court has no competency, a second suit before the proper competent court will lie. Similarly a judgment obtained by fraud or collusion does not operate as res-judicata.
• The previous case must be case which was "heard and finally decided" Explanation V says that, 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.

The section envisages that there should be a final decision on which a court has to exercise its judicial mind. It is deemed to be finally decided even if the decision was ex-parte. Important aspects in Sec.11CPC

• Matter in issue. Matter in issue means the rights litigated in between the parties.
• Matters directly and substantially in issue.

A matter is said to be directly and substantially in issue in a suit, if it is alleged by one party and denied or admitted either expressly or impliedly by the other. In other words, a matter in respect of which no relief is claimed cannot become 'directly and substantially in issue' even if a decree is passed by a competent court.

• Suit

A suit is a civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint. It is the proceedings before a court of justice by which an individual seeks the remedy which the law affords. Thus a suit in Sec. 11 means the proceedings in the court of first instance as distinguished from the proceedings in the Appellate Court, though the general principles of Res judicata will apply to appellate proceedings also.

• Former Suit

The word former suit as provided in Sec. 11CPC denote that, it is a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.

• Issue

Issue is the material proposition, which, one party asserts and the other party denies the very existence of it.

• Same Parties.

The another condition for applying the doctrine 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. It means that, the judgments and decrees bind the parties and privies and so when the parties in the subsequent suit are different from the former suit, there is no res-judicata. In other words, in Order to operate a decision as a res-judicata:

• There must be a right claimed by one or more persons in common for themselves and others not expressly named in the suit;
• The parties not expressly named in the suit must be interested in such right,
• The litigation has conducted bona-fide and on behalf of all parties interested;

and

• If the suit is one under 0.1 R.8 CPC, all conditions laid down therein must have been strictly complied with.
• Same Title.

Same title means the same legal capacity. Litigating under the same title means, the demand should be of the same quality in the second suit as was in the former suit.

• Competent Court.

The court which decided the former suit must have been a court, competent to try the subsequent suit. If the decision is rendered by a court, not competent to try the subsequent suit, that decision will not operate as a res-judicata. The relevant point of time for deciding the question of competency of the court is the date when the former suit was brought and not the date when the subsequent suit was filed.

• Heard and Finally Decided.

Another condition for the applicability of the doctrine of res-judicata 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 former suit. The expression 'heard and finally decided' means, in a contested matter, the court has applied its judicial mind and after hearing both sides have come to a conclusion. Suggested Readings

• Kammaran v. Raman (1994 (1) KLJ 390)
• Mahboob Saheb v. Syed Ismail (1995 (2) KLT SN 15 P. 14)
• Sarasamma v. Vikraman (1995 (2) KLT 65)
• Syed v. Ummer (2000 (2) KLT SN 89 P. 82)
• Oriental Ins, Coy, Ltd. v. Gopalakrishnan Nair (2000 (1) KLT 91)
• Krishna Iyer v. Kunnath Chelan Avvokkar (2000 (2) KLT 501)