Guiding Principles of Res Judicata

 The concept of Res Judicata is described in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The provision states:

No Court shall try any 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.

A bare reading of this provision gives us the basic idea that a suit cannot be tried again if it has already been tried in a competent court with the same issues in question. However, when we examine the procedural aspects of this doctrine, we find many challenges in its application.

Procedural Challenges

For instance, if a suit is filed for Probate and Succession as per Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, and upon failure to obtain the Letters of Administration, can we not apply to the same Civil Court for the same remedy? If Res Judicata were strictly applicable, we wouldn't be able to do this. However, courts interpret such suits as summary trials, which may be considered exceptions to the doctrine of Res Judicata, though such exceptions are not explicitly mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Relevant Case Law

Sri Venkatalingaiah Murthy vs Smt Nalini @ Mala (2020)

In the case of Sri Venkatalingaiah Murthy vs Smt Nalini @ Mala on January 8, 2020, Justice Nagarathna clarified that:

...the procedure for the grant of probate is quite distinct from the procedure envisaged in a suit when a plaint is filed under Section 26 read with Order VII Rule 1 of the CPC. Thus, a suit filed within the meaning of Section 90 of the CPC cannot be equated with a petition filed under Section 276 of the Act.

This interpretation suggests that there are exceptions to the Doctrine of Res Judicata, raising questions about its applicability, as this is a critical doctrine in the rejection of a plaint.

Prem Kishore vs Brahm Prakash (2023)

The Supreme Court's ruling in Prem Kishore vs Brahm Prakash on March 29, 2023, is an important decision in interpreting Res Judicata. The judgment states:

The general principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC contains rules of conclusiveness of judgment, but for res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. Further, the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality. Where the former suit is dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of the plaintiff’s appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or letter of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of improper valuation, or for failure to pay additional court fee on a plaint which was undervalued, or for want of cause of action, or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal (if any), the decision, not being on the merits, would not be res judicata in a subsequent suit.

Further, the judgment discusses the power of the court while handling matters of res judicata:

The power conferred on Courts under Rule 3 of Order 17 of the CPC to decide the suit on the merits for the default of a party is a drastic power which seriously restricts the remedy of the unsuccessful party for redress. It has to be used only sparingly in exceptional cases. Physical presence without preparedness to cooperate for anything connected with the progress of the case serves no useful purpose in deciding the suit on the merits and it is worse than absence. In any contingency, the discretion is always with the Court to resort to Rule 2 or 3 respectively or to grant an adjournment for deciding the suit in a regular way in spite of default. Rules 2 and 3 respectively are only enabling provisions. In order to decide the suit on the merits, the mere existence of the conditions enumerated in Rule 3 alone will not be sufficient. There must be some materials for a decision on the merits, even though the materials may not be technically interpreted as evidence. Sometimes the decision in such cases could be on the basis of pleadings, documents and burden of proof. Anyhow, it is appreciable for the Court to indicate by the judgment that the decision is for default or on the merits. The only alternative of the Court in cases covered by Rule 3 or the explanation to Rule 2 is not to decide on the merits alone. If such an interpretation is given, it will amount to an unjustified preference to one who purposely absents than to one who presents but unable to proceed with the case. 'Appearance' and 'presence' have well-recognized meanings. They imply presence in person or through pleader properly authorized for the purpose of conducting the case. Rule 3 comes into play only when presence is to proceed with the case, but default is committed in any one of the three ways mentioned in Rule 2 or explanation to Rule 2 is extracted. Those are cases in which some materials are there for the Court to decide the case on the merits and not cases where the decision could only be for default.

Conclusion

A combined reading of these judgments provides a broader interpretation of Res Judicata. If the courts take a different view in future cases, I will update this blog accordingly. For now, this is a comprehensive overview of the concept of Res Judicata and its application in Indian law.