Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
10 CPC
No Court to proceed with trail of any suit in which the matter in issue, is
also directly and substantially in issue. In previously instituted suit between the
same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating
under the same title, where such suit is pending in same or any other Court, in
India, Having jurisdiction to grant relief claimed.
Explanation: The pendency of a suit in a Foreign Court doesnt preclude the Courts
in India from, trying a suit founded on same cause of action.
2)
Conditions: The conditions that are needed for Res Sub Judice to apply are
The matter in issue in both the cases are to be substantially the same
Previously instituted suit must be pending in the same or any other court
competent to grant:
A)
B)
Suits to the parties are to be the same or between parties under whom they
or any of them claim, litigating under the same title.
For purpose of institution, the date of presentation of plaint and not the date
of admission is considered. The term suit includes appeal.
Ex:
A an agent of B at Delhi agreed to sell Bs goods in Chennai. A the
agent files suit for balance of accounts in Chennai. B sues the agent A for
accounts and his negligence in Delhi; while case is pending in Chennai. In this case,
Delhi Court is precluded from conducting trail and A can petition Chennai Court to
direct stay of proceedings against Delhi Court.
Case Laws:
plaintiff in their defence against S.10 CPC, had not stated the Jamshedpur Court is
competent. Thus relief was granted to the defendant.'
Conclusion:
Res Sub Judice, operates as a stay from the same subject
matter in issue being parallel instituted in two different Courts. S.10 CPC has the
twin objects of
Res Judicata
Recovery of damages from the defendant twice for the same injury.
Claim Preclusion
Issue Preclusion
Claim Preclusion: It focuses on barring a suit from being brought again on a legal
cause of 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 part of earlier claim.
NB: This doesnt include the process of Appeal , as it is considered to the
appropriate way to challenge a judgement. Once the appeal process is exhausted or
barred by limitation, the Res Judicata will apply to the decision.
The Three Maxims
Doctrine of Res Judicata or Rule of Conclusive Judgement is based on the
following three maxims:
1)
NEMO DEBET LIS VEXARI PRO EADEM CAUSA- No Man to Be Vexed Twice For
The Same Cause.
2)
INTEREST REPUBLICAE UT SIT FINIS LITIUM- It is in the Interest of the State
That There Should Be End To Litigation.
3)
RE JUDICATA PRO VERITATE OCCIPITUR- A Judicial Decision Should Be Accepted
As Correct.
Has been
Or between parties claiming under them, litigating under the same title
1)
Former suit denotes a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in
question, and not if it was prior to this suit. i.e. the cut-off is date of judgement and
not the date of institution of the suit.
2)
Competency of a Court is to be decided, irrespective of the right to appeal
from a former suit.
3)
The matter referred to in this suit must have been alleged by one party and
either accepted or refused by the other party (expressly/impliedly).
4)
Any matter which might or ought to have been made ground of
attack/defence in such former suit, shall be deemed to have been a matter directly
and substantially in issue in such suit (Constructive Res Judicata).
5)
If any relief was claimed in plaint and was not granted expressly, it would be
deemed to have been refused in such former suit.
6)
When persons litigate bonafide in respect of a public / private right claimed in
common for themselves and others, all persons interested for the purpose of S.11 ,
will be deemed as claiming under persons litigating.
7)
It is also to be remembered that, a Court of limited jurisdiction where the
former suit was instituted and decided upon, shall operate as Res Judicata, even if
the Court of limited jurisdiction is not competent to try the subsequent suit.
8)
In Slochana Amma V Narayana Nair 1994: Held, the doctrine of Res Judicata
applies to quasi judicial proceedings before tribunals also.
In Govndaswamy V Kasturi Ammal 1998:
Held, the Doctrine of Res Judicata
applies to the plaintiff as well as the defendant.
In Umayal Achi V MPM Ramanathan Chettiar:
Held, the correctness or
otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon whether or not it operates as
Res Judicata.
proceedings.
Y.B.Patil V Y.L.Patil:
held once an order made in course of
proceedings becomes final, it would be binding upon the parties at subsequent
stage of the same proceedings.
b)
It must be necessary to decided such conflicts, in order to give relief to the
plaintiff.
c)
d)
b)
It must be necessary to decided such conflicts, in order to give relief to the
plaintiff.
c)
Sunil Dutt V Union of India : Held that habeas corpus, filed under fresh grounds and
changed circumstances will not be barred by a previous such petition.
2)
Pujaril Bal V Madan Gopal : Held Res Judicata not applicable when dismissed in
limine
( without speaking orders) or on grounds of laches or availability of alternate
remedies.
3)
Matter collaterally and incidentally in issue doesnt operate as Res Judicata
Sayed Mhd V Musa Ummer
4)