Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice – LegalRath

One of the Yardsticks of Assessing the Functioning of the courts is to assess the ‘Judicial Efficiency’. The Judicial Efficiency isn’t only hooked into the working of the judges and therefore the courts, rather it depends more on the proper implementation of the ‘common law rules. In Latin, res judicata means a matter that has been judged. When a case has already been decided and therefore the final judgement been given such the matter is not any longer subject to appeal, the doctrine of res judicata bars or precludes continued litigation of such matter between equivalent parties.

On the opposite hand, legal means ‘under judgment’. It implies that a matter is being considered by court or judge. during a scenario when two or more cases are filed between equivalent parties on an equivalent material, the competent court has the facility to remain proceedings. So, the doctrine of Res legal means stay of suit.

Res sub judice:

Let us discuss, The doctrine of res sub judice so, When two or more cases are filed between equivalent parties on an equivalent material, in two or more different Courts, the competent court has power to “Stay Proceedings” of another Court. The doctrine of res legal aims to stop courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations with reference to an equivalent explanation for action, same material and same relief claimed.

Application of Res sub judice in India

Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code defines ‘Stay of suit’ as follows:

“No Court to proceed with trail of any suit during which the matter in issue, is additionally directly and substantially in issue. In previously instituted suit between an equivalent parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under an equivalent title, where such suit is pending in same or the other Court, in India, Having jurisdiction to grant relief claimed. Explanation: The pendency of a suit during a Foreign Court doesn’t preclude the Courts in India from, trying a suit founded on same explanation for action.”
Scope and Objective of section 10:

Scope: Section 10 deals with the concept of Res legal.

Objective: the thing of Section 10 is to stop Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously, trying two parallel cases, in respect of the same matter in issue. the 2 fold objects are:

· Avoid wasting Court Resources.

· Avoid Conflicting decisions.

· Conditions or essentials

· The matter in issue in both the cases are to be substantially an equivalent

· Previously instituted suit must be pending within the same or the other court competent to grant:

· Relief claimed within the suit.

· Relief claimed in subsequent the suit.

· Suits to the parties are to be an equivalent or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under an equivalent title.

· Pendency of suit in Foreign Court doesn’t activate Section 10 CPC.

· If suit is pending before a Court and subsequently an application is filed before a Thasildhar, it doesn’t invoke Section 10 as Thasildhar isn’t a “Court”

· For purpose of institution, the date of presentation of plaint and not the date of admission is taken into account. The term suit includes appeal.

· Any decree passed in violation of Section 10 is null and void.

Res judicata:

In case of res judicata , a matter once decided can’t be raised again, either within the same court or during a different court. this is often why it’s also called as ‘claim preclusion’ because it precludes or prohibits any longer claims after the ultimate judgment. it’s a standard practice meant to bar re-litigation of cases between equivalent parties within the court.

The doctrine of res judicata come from the complete maxim ‘Res judicata pro veritate accipitur’. The concept of res judicata evolved from English Common Law system, and was derived from the overriding concept of judicial economy, consistency, and finality. From the common law, it got included within the Code of Civil Procedure, which was later as an entire was adopted by the Indian system .

Purpose of res judicata:

Res Judicata aims to prevent;Injustice to the parties of a case that has been supposedly concluded by providing closure to a judgment and precluding any longer claims,Unnecessary waste of court resources, Multiplying of judgments as further claims would cause several varied judgements on an equivalent matter which can cause confusion, Recovery of damages from the defendant twice for an equivalent injury.

Res judicata includes:

Claim preclusion: it focuses on barring a suit from being brought again on a legal explanation for action, that has already been, finally decided between the parties.

Issue preclusion: bars the re-litigation of factual issues that have already been necessarily determined by a judge as a part of earlier claim.

Though it must be noted that, this doesn’t include the method of appeal, as an appeal is taken into account the acceptable thanks to challenge a judgement. Once the appeal process is exhausted or barred by limitation, the res judicata will apply to the choice. Therefore, its application is merely on the ultimate decision post appeals.

Res Judicata under Indian law:

Res judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of the judgment has been embodied within the Indian law under Section 11 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It enacts that when a matter is finally decided by a competent Court, no party are often permitted to reopen it during a subsequent litigation. Section 11 states that;

“No Court shall try any suit or issue during which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue during a former suit between an equivalent parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under an equivalent title, during a Court competent to undertake such subsequent suit or the suit during which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and eventually decided by such Court.”
Applications of res judicata:

The doctrine of res judicata is often invoked even within the subsequent stage of equivalent proceedings. within the case of Y.B. Patil v. Y.L.Patil, the court held that when an order is formed within the course of the proceedings, it becomes final and thus would be binding upon the parties at any subsequent stages of equivalent proceedings.

This doctrine also can apply against co-defendants. within the case of  Mahaboob Sahab v Syed Ismail, the court held the subsequent four conditions must be satisfied for the appliance of res judicata:

· there must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned.

· it must be necessary to make a decision such conflicts, so as to offer relief to the plaintiff the questions between the defendants to be finally decided.

· co-defendants to be necessary and proper parties to the suit.