Res means Subject Matter, and judicata means convicted, which is “a matter adjudged.” The Court has decided the matter. The same issue cannot be brought before another court if the Court has already settled the case between the parties. The Court will then dismiss or put aside the lawsuit if another court has already decided. The doctrine of Res-Judicata covers both criminal and civil systems. It is not possible to try a suit that was directly or indirectly tried during a previous case.

The doctrine of Res Judicata

Res Judicata is a doctrine that aims to promote fairness and honesty in the administration of justice and to protect the law against abuse. Res Judicata applies when a litigant tries to file a civil lawsuit with the same subject after receiving a judgment in a prior case, wherein both the parties and the issue are the same. This applies in many jurisdictions not only to specific claims that were made in the initial case but also to any claims that may have been raised during the same litigation.

The Code of Civil Procedure Code, Section 11, incorporates the doctrine of Res Judicata. It is also known as the “rule of conclusiveness of judgement.” In India, the doctrine of Res Judicata has been established as a legal principle in the case of Satyadhyan v. Deorjin Debi. The Court’s judgment was given by Judge Das Gupta J. and appealed to the landlords, who obtained a decree of eviction against Deorajin Deo and her son. They still cannot take possession of the property soon after the Court’s judgment. A petition was filed by the tenant under Section 28 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy, claiming that they are Thika tenants. The landlords resisted this petition, claiming that they were not Thika tenants within the meaning of the Act.

The tenants filed a civil case with the High Court of Calcutta. The Court used the doctrine of Res Judicata in order to bring an end to litigation. The result was that both the original Court and the higher Court could continue with any future litigation based on the fact that the previous ruling was correct.

Res-Judicata is a doctrine that says:

A case should not be tried more than once for the same reasons.

The state has the right to decide whether a lawsuit should end.

The Court’s decision must be accepted.

Res Judicata: Example

‘X” sued ‘Y” as he did not pay rent. ‘Y” requested that the rent be reduced on the foundation because the amount of land was lower than stated on the lease documents. The Courts found that the amount of land was more than stated in the lease. The Courts concluded that the land was in excess, and therefore, Res Judicata doctrines would not apply.

In a civil lawsuit, “X,” the respondents asked that the Court dismiss or put away the civil case by appealing Res Judicata. The Court ruled that Res Judicata had to be proven with evidence. Her claim was barred due to Res-Judicata.

Res Judicata Prerequisites

A decision made by a court or tribunal with experience.

This is the final and binding version

Any decision taken on merits

A fair hearing

The previous decision is irrelevant.

Res-Judicata: its nature and scope

Res Judicata is based on two principles: claim preclusion and subject preclusion. The matter preclusion principle is also called collateral estoppel. After the final merits judgment, the litigants in the case are not allowed to sue one another. If a plaintiff loses in a lawsuit against a respondent, say in case A, then he can’t sue him again in lawsuit B on the basis of the same facts and circumstances. The same facts and events should not be repeated in another court. In matter preclusion, it is prohibited to litigate the same legal issues that the judge already decided in an earlier lawsuit.

The case of Gulam Abdulas v. State of Uttar Pradesh has concluded. The Court, in this case, used the rules to appeal an issue already decided by a previous lawsuit. The judges had to apply Res Judicata in order to reach a decision. The conclusion was that Res Judicata does not cover all cases; even when the issue is not covered by the section directly, the lawsuit will still be considered res judicata based on general doctrines.

Res Judicata Landmark Judgments

In Lowe v. Haggerty, a question of importance was raised regarding the effect of a previous judgment on the respondent when the guest sued. The Court ruled that the suit was barred. The previous record did not reveal what the original proceeding was. The Court ruled that it wasn’t possible to determine the subject matter of the earlier lawsuit. The Court dismissed the records made by parties in similar situations. In this case, the non-suit request was denied, and the plaintiff was denied his appeal.