The term 'Res Judicata' is a Latin term in which Res means 'subject matter' and Judicata means 'adjudged' and together it means “a matter adjudged" and it is applied to both civil and criminal cases. In simple words, if the issue is been already decided by any court and between the same parties will be dismissed by another court as it has been already decided.
ORIGIN OF RES JUDICATA
The concept of res judicata was included by the English common-law system. The term is derived from the maxim “Re Judicata pro veritate occiputor” which means that if the case is once decided, attains finality then no further case can be filed to decide the similar issue. In India, earlier the term res judicata was known as Purva Nyaya or former judgement according to Hindu lawyers and Muslim jurists respectively. And the principle of res judicata was originated from the seventh amendment to the US Constitution. If a Court has given a verdict in a civil trial, it cannot be changed by another coat until there are any specific conditions.
Prerequisites of res judicata contains:
1.A judgment by proficient court or tribunal,
2.Final and binding and
3.Any decision made on the merits.
4.A good hearing
5.Earlier decision right or wrong isn't relevant.
NATURE AND SCOPE OF RES JUDICATA
Rescued kata contains two concepts firstly, claim preclusion and secondly, issue preclusion. Issue preclusion is also known as collateral estoppel. In claim preclusion parties cannot sue each other again after the final verdict. For example, if a plaintiff ‘X' wins or loses a case against the defendant 'Y' in the case say 'A', he cannot again sue the defendant in case 'B' based on same facts and events not even in different Court. Where in the issue of preclusion of the re-litigation of the issues of law that have already been determined is prohibited.
In the case of Gulam Abbas versus State of Uttar Pradesh the scope of Res Judicata has been decided. So, in this case the court incorporated the rules as evidence of a plea of an issue which was already tried earlier in a case. And it was decided that Res Judicata is not exhaustive and even if the issue is not directly covered under the provisions of the section it will be considered as a case on the grounds of the principal of Res Judicata.
DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA
The doctrine of Res Judicata is originated from three Roman maxims:
Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa – It means that no person should be disputed annoyed, harassed or disputed two times for the same cause;
Interest republicae ut sit finis litium – It says that it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end of litigation; and
Re judicata pro veritate occipitur – verdict of the court should be adjudged as true.
In India, section 11 of the civil Procedure code includes the doctrine of res judicata which is also known as 'rule of conclusiveness of judgement’ and it is well explained in the case of satyadhyan ghosal vs Deorji Debi. In this case an appeal was made by landlords who procured a decree for ejectment against the tenants who were Deorajin Debi and her minor son. However, they need not been yet able to get possession in execution soon after the decree was made. An application was filed 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 weren't Thika Tenants within the meaning of the Act.
The tenants moved to the court of Calcutta under the Civil Procedure Code. The court applied the principle of issue to attain the finality in litigation. The result came that the initial court, in addition because the higher court can proceed for any future litigation on the idea that the previous decision was correct.
Similarly, in State of uttar pradesh v. Nawab Hussain's case, M was a sub-inspector and was removed from the service of D.I.G. he challenged the order of dismissal by filing a writ petition within the high court. He said that he failed to get a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the passing of the order. However, the argument was negatived and therefore the petition was dismissed. He again filed a petition on the bottom that he was appointed by the I.G.P. and had no power to dismiss him. The defendant argued that the suit was prohibited by constructive topic. However, the court, the primary court likewise because the court held that the suit wasn't barred by the doctrine of matter. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by constructive subject because the plea was within the knowledge of the plaintiff, M and he could have taken this argument in his earlier suit.
Daryao versus State of Uttar Pradesh
In the historic case of Daryao vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the doctrine of res judicata is of universal application was accepted. The Supreme Court of India placed the doctrine of matter on a still broader foundation. during this case, petitioners filed a writ petition within the high court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution. But the suit was dismissed. Then they filed independent petitions within 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 court would be operated as res judicata to a petition under Article 32. The Supreme Court dismissed and differed with the petitions.
The court held that the rule of res judicata bids to a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. If a petition is filed by the petitioner within the court under Article 226 of the Constitution and it's dismissed on the premise of merits, it might be operated as res judicata to bar the same petition within 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 questioned the validity of an order of assessment under Article 226. The petition was dismissed on the premise of merits. The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal that was made against the order on the premise of merits. B again filed another writ petition within the same court against the identical order of assessment. This point the petition was dismissed by the high court. The Supreme Court held that the petition was prohibited by the principle of res judicata.
Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh
A peculiar problem arose within the case of Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh. A filed a lawsuit, a contention regarding the arbitration of the Court was taken by B. The objection was sustained and also the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for the presentation. The Revenue Court didn't have any jurisdiction when A approached the Revenue Court so he returned the petition. Another time A filed a suit within the Civil Court. B contended that the suit was prohibited by the doctrine of the subject.