Skip to main content

Res Judicata u/s 11 of CPC, 1908 by Mayurakshi Sarkar at Lexcliq

 Res Judicata u/s 11 of CPC, 1908 by Mayurakshi Sarkar at Lexcliq

Introduction

Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code defines the Latin maxim "Res Judicata," which means "the thing has been judged," and means that if a case is brought before the court and a previous court has already decided on the same issue, between the same parties, and involving the same cause of action, the court will dismiss the case as useless. Res Judicata is a critical term in both civil and criminal law. In accordance with Section 11 of the, no party may reopen any matter that has already been decided by a competent court. In Satyadhan Ghosal vs. Deorajin Deb, the Supreme Court correctly spelled out and followed Section 11's basic goals and operations. When a res judicata has been adjudicated, it can't be adjudicated again, according to the Principle of Res-Judicata. If a case or proceeding between two parties has been decided and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher court or because the appeal was dismissed or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed to canvass in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties on the basis of past litigation.

Objectives

This doctrine is based on three maxims which are as follows:

  • Nemo debt bis vexari pro una et eadem causa which means no man should be vexed twice for the same cause

  • Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means it is in the interest of the State there should be an end to a litigation; and

  • Res judicata pro veritate occipitur which means judicial accepted as correct.

Applicability

The principle of res judicata is rooted in both public policy and individual self-interest. This doctrine is relevant to civil litigation, execution proceedings, arbitration proceedings, taxation concerns, industrial adjudication, writ petitions, administrative orders, interim orders, criminal proceedings, and so on and so forth. As a result, this philosophy does not purport to be exhaustive.

Res Judicata & Estoppel

The part of the theory of estoppel known as estoppel by record corresponds to res judicata. Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act defines estoppel as "by behaviour or agreement or estoppel in parties," as defined by the Indian Evidence Act. This means that although if the doctrine of estoppel, in its broadest sense, includes the concept of res judicata, it must be distinguished from the Indian law of evidence's specific definition of estoppel.

The doctrine of res Judicata can be distinguished from estoppel, as generally understood, on the following grounds:

  • The rule of res judicata is based on public policy, i.e., it is to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation and belongs to the province of the procedure. Estoppel, on the other hand, is part of the law of evidence and proceeds on the equitable principle of altered the situation, viz., that he who, by his conduct, has induced another to alter his position to his disadvantage, cannot turn round and take advantage of such alteration of others position.

  • Res judicata precludes a man from averring the same thing in successive litigations, while estoppel prevents a party from saying two contradictory things at different times.

  • Res judicata is reciprocal and binds both the parties, while estoppel binds the party who made the previous statement or showed the previous conduct.

  • Res judicata prohibits the court from entering into an enquiry as well as to a matter already adjudicated upon; estoppel prohibits a party after the inquiry has already been entered upon, from proving anything which would contradict his own previous declaration or acts to the prejudice of another party who, relying upon these declarations or acts, has altered his position.

  • Res judicata prohibits an inquiry in timeline and bars the trial of a suit while estoppel is only a piece of evidence and emphasises that a man should not be allowed to retrace the steps already walked over.

  • Res judicata ousts the jurisdiction of the court, while estoppel shuts the mouth of a party.

Conclusion

The first and most important duty of all courts is to ensure that the Court's actions do not harm the parties involved. It has been said that the Court's actions will inflict no harm (actus curiae neminem gravabit). Consequently, all courts must ensure that their actions do not hurt or injure potential suitors. The Supreme Court-ordered the withdrawal of the appellant's case against him pending in a Special Judge's Court and moved it to Bombay's High Court. The appellant objected to the Bombay High Court's jurisdiction in the first place. The Court, on the other hand, rejected it.

The Supreme Court was then contacted by the appellant. Controversy erupted about whether the order may have been issued. Respondent's argument was based on res judicata. The Apex Court ruled that the appellant's fundamental rights were violated by the prior order, therefore no rule of res judicata would apply in this case.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more