CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PROJECT

A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the award of the degree
of
BALLB (Hons.)

by

Ishika Agarwal

201301099

DEPARTMENT OF LAW
Manipal University JAIPUR
JAIPUR-303007
RAJASTHAN, INDIA

OCTOBER, 2023
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
MANIPAL UNIVERSITY JAIPUR, JAIPUR–303007(RAJASTHAN), INDIA

Date: 25-10-2023
1
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project titled rulings on res judicata 1950 to 2009 is a record of
the bonafide work done by ishika agarwal (201301099) submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the BALLB ( Hons) in School Of Law
of Manipal University Jaipur, during the academic year 2023-24.

Dept Guide Name: deepankar

Project Guide, Dept of law
Manipal University Jaipur

HOD Name: SONY KULSHRESTHA

HOD, Dept of law
Manipal University Jaipur

2
 Date: 10-11-2023

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project entitled Rulings on res judicata 1950 to 2009 was carried out
by ishika agarwal (201301099) under my
Guidance IN THE YEAR 2023.

Supervisor Name:
Deepankar

3
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my profound gratitude to Mr. Deepankar , for his contributions
to the completion of my project titled Rulings on res judicata 1950 to 2009.
I would like to acknowledge that this project was completed entirely by me and not by
someone else

4
INTRODUCTION

The doctrine of ResJudicata has a long history in various legal systems around the world, including I
ndia. This doctrine has its origins in the Roman legal system and other ancient legal systems.
The United States of America included this doctrine in their seventh amendment as well.
This doctrine is present in England, but it is disorganized; however, England later evolved this doctri
ne based on their legal systems.
However, Hindu lawyers and Mohammedan jurists will be well aware of its origins.
In Hindu law, this doctrine was previously known as Purva Nyaya, which means "previous judgment
." This rule was harshly applied in earlier Hindu laws and by Muslim jurists in India.

Later, the modern Indian legal system adopted this doctrine from the English common law system an
d abandoned the ancient forms of Res-Judicata, which was incorrect.
Civil suits, arbitration proceedings, taxation matters, industrial adjudications, writ petitions, adminis
trative orders, interim orders, criminal proceedings, and so on all use the Res-Judicata doctrine.
According to the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908, this doctrine is not exhaustive.

The Ingredients of Res-Judicata or the Rule of Conclusiveness are:

a) Same Parties in Subsequent Suits- In order to demonstrate the rule of Res-Judicata, the partie
s in a subsequent suit must be the same or between the same parties against whom they had a
claim.
b) The Title of the Suit Must Be the Same- Another important ingredient is that the title of th
e suit must be the same by the contesting parties in order to prove the Res-Judicata rule.
c) The Court has decided the matter on merits and should be competent to hear that suit- the c
ourts should hear all parties on merits and render a decision on merits.
d) The Subject-Matter of Dispute Must Be the Same- In order to be eligible for this section-
11, Code of civil procedure
1908, the subject matter of dispute must be the same in previous and subsequent suits.

Types of Courts-

5
a) Courts of Exclusive Jurisdiction- the courts of exclusive jurisdiction like revenue courts, land
acquisition courts, administrative courts etc, any subsequent plea in these courts will operate as Res-
Judicata.
b) Courts of Limited Jurisdiction- a decision on issue which is finally decided by the court of limited
jurisdiction will also operate as Res-Judicata in the subsequent suit irrespective of the fact that the
court of limited jurisdiction is not competent to try that suit. In Nabin Majhi v. Tela Majhi, AIR
1978 Cal 440, Hon'ble Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held that courts of limited jurisdiction
are the courts other than ordinary courts like revenue courts, land acquisition courts etc and the
decision of that courts will operate as Res-Judicata in the subsequent suits. But a court of limited
pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be said to be a court of limited jurisdiction. If the former court is
unable to try the suit due to limited pecuniary jurisdiction then the subsequent suits filed will not
operate as Res-Judicata. In P.V.N. Devoki Amma v. P.V.N. Kunhi Raman Nair, 1980 AIR (Kerala)
230, Hon'ble Bench Division Bench of Kerala High Court held that decisions rendered even by the
civils courts of limited pecuniary jurisdiction operate as Res-Judicata, fact that such court rendering
decision is not competent to try subsequent suit is immaterial. Hon'ble Bench also held that court of
limited jurisdiction is wide enough to include a court whose jurisdiction is subject to pecuniary
limitation. This above Judgement did not go with the view held by Hon'ble Bench of Calcutta High
Court in 1978. Later on, Supreme Court of India in 1993, in Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair,
1994 AIR (SC) 152, overruled the Judgement Nabin Majhi v. Tela Maghi(Supra) given by Calcutta
High Court held that if this judgement is followed then there will be unending litigation which would
lead to conflicting of decisions and also held that High Court of Calcutta took a very narrow view
limiting the scope of Explanation VIII to decisions of the courts of special jurisdictions like
insolvency, land acquisition, rent controller, land revenue tribunal etc. It also held that the view point
given in same proposition by Kerala High Court is broader and stands approved. Hon'ble Bench of
Supreme Court also held in this case if the decree passed by the Rent Controller shall operate as Res-
Judicata but a decree of the District Civil Judge Junior Division will not operate as Res-Judicata
because of limited pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge Junior Division ,though there is same officer
who decides the case as Rent Controller and also as a Civil Judge Junior Division.
C) Courts of Concurrent Jurisdiction- if the former suit is decided by the court of concurrent
jurisdiction having competence to try the subsequent suits then decision given by it will operate as
Res-Judicata in the subsequent suits.

6
LANDMARK CASES from 1950 to 2009

Devilal Modi vs. Sales Tax Officer

In the seminal case of Devilal Modi v. STO, B contested the legitimacy of an Article 226 order of ass
essment. On the grounds of merit, the petition was denied.
The appeal against the order was also denied by the Supreme Court on the grounds of merit.
B appealed the same assessment order once more in a writ suit at the same High Court.
The High Court denied the petition on this occasion.
The Supreme Court ruled that the res judicata principle precluded the petition.

Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh

In the case of Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh, an odd issue came up.
After A filed a civil lawsuit, B raised a dispute about the court's arbitration.
After the objection was upheld, the plaintiff received the plaint back to present.
When A approached the Revenue Court, he returned the petition because the Revenue Court lacked j
urisdiction. A filed a lawsuit in the Civil Court once more.
B argued that the res judicata doctrine barred the suit.

Mathura Prasad v. Dossabai N.B. Jeejeebhoy

It was decided in Mathura Prasad v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy that res judicata is a legal agreement b
etween the parties to a prior case and cannot be changed in a subsequent one.
Even in matters of law, a competent court's decision is usually res judicata.
Nonetheless, a legal dispute unrelated to the events leading to the right will not serve as res judicata.
An authority has already changed the decision when there is a change in the cause of action or the la
w. In the ensuing proceeding, the decision will be deemed valid and res judicata will not apply.

7
Res-Judicata in Writ Petitions-though Res-Judicata does not applied in writ petitions but there is no
right ground to prevent the decisions in the matters in writ proceedings under Article-32 or Article-
226 of Indian Constitution from operating as Res-Judicata in the subsequent proceedings. In MSM
Sharma v. Dr Shree Krishna, AIR 1960 SC 1186, for the first time the Supreme Court of India held
that section-11 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 will be applied to even writ petitions also. Hon'ble
Bench held that once the petition filed under Article-32 or Article-226 of the Indian Constitution is
dismissed then subsequent petitions will be barred by Res-Judicata. The decision will bind the parties
to file the subsequent petitions in the court of law unless the decision is reversed in the appeal.

Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457in which the Petitioners has filed a writ
petition in Allahabad High Court under Article-226 and they were dismissed. Later the Petitioners
again file the substantive petitions in the Supreme Court of India under Article-32 of Indian
Constitution. The Hon'ble Bench dismissed the petitions of Petitioners as they operate as Res-
Judicata.

The historic case of Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh established the doctrine of res judicata as havin
g universal application.
The Supreme Court of India expanded the doctrine of res judicata even further.
Petitioners in this case filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Con
stitution. However, the lawsuit was dismissed.
They then filed separate petitions in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution's writ jur
isdiction.
The defendants objected to the petition, claiming that the High Court's prior decision would be applie
d as res judicata to a petition under Article 32.
The petitions were dismissed and the Supreme Court disagreed with them.

The court ruled that the res judicata rule applies to a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitutio
n.
If the petitioner files a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court and it is dismi
ssed on the merits, it will be used as res judicata to bar a similar petition in the Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution.

8
Res-Judicata and Res-Sub Judice- Res-Judicata under Sec-11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 is
bar on the matter and trail which has been already been adjudicated whereas Res-Sub Judice means
bar on the fresh matter and trail because the earlier matter on same facts and same parties with same
title is pending before the court of law.
Performa Defendant and Representative Suit under Section-11 of C.P.C.- the Defendant against
whom no relief is sought but his/her presence is necessary for the complete adjudication of suit is
known as Performa Defendant. As no relief is being sought against him, a finding does not operate as
Res-Judicata in the subsequent suits. On the other hand, Representative suits are that kind of suits
which are filed in the representative capacity as different from personal capacity. In Ahmad Adam
Sait v. M.E. Makhri, AIR 1964 SC 107it was held that where the persons litigate bona-fide for the
public right and all litigating in such suits are barred by Res-Judicata in the subsequent suits.

Doctrine of Res-Judicata in Criminal Proceedings-as stated above this doctrine has the universal
application. This rule not only applied to civil, administrative matters etc but also applied to criminal
matters also. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1972 SC 1502, held that once a person is
acquitted or convicted by the competent criminal court of law he cannot once again be tried for same
offence as it is barred by the doctrine of Res-Judicata.

Res-Judicata Between Co-Plaintiffs and Co-Defendants- As there is Res-Judicata between Plaintiffs

and Defendant in the same way there is Res-Judicata between Co-Plaintiffs and Co-Defendants on
the grounds that: there is a dispute of interest between Co-Plaintiffs or Co-Defendants, it is necessary
to decide the conflict in order to give the relief to Plaintiff or Defendant, the question between co-
defendants or co-plaintiffs has been decided, the co-defendants are necessary or proper parties in a
suit. In the another landmark Judgement of Iftikar Ahmed and Syed Meharban Ali, (1974) 2 SCC
151, the Hon'ble Bench of Supreme Court said that if there is a conflict between plaintiffs and matter
is to be decided in order to give relief to Defendant and further the matter is decided then it will
operate as Res-Judicata between co-plaintiffs in subsequent suits in future.

9
Constructive Res-Judicata- this is also one of the important provisions of section-11 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. This provision means that if the party in a suit could have taken the plea against his
opponent, at the same time he could not be allowed to take that plea in the subsequent suits with
same subject-matter on the grounds that he had not taken that plea in the former suit. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has given the landmark judgement in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab
Hussian, (1977) 2 SCC 806, a direct question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby in
this case A Sub-Inspector of Police was dismissed from the service by the DIG (Director General of
Police). He challenged the order of his dismissal in High Court in a Writ Petition saying that he was
not given reasonable opportunity of being heard by the authorities and later he took the additional
grounds that he was appointed by IGP (Inspector General of Police) and he was removed by the DIG
(Director General of Police). The latter has no power to dismiss him. The State contended that the
additional ground taken by him is Res-Judicata. The State High Court allowed the petition of Sub-
Inspector of Police. But State of U.P. has filed a appeal in Supreme Court of India whereby Hon'ble
Bench of Court said that suit Sub-Inspector of Police was barred by Constructive Res-Judicata as
court said that the plea was within the knowledge of plaintiff and could be taken earlier.

Res-Judicata in Interim Orders- the doctrine of Res-Judicata is applied in the different stages of the
proceedings in a suit. In Ajay Mohan v. H.N. Rai, AIR 2008 SC 804 held that if there is interim
order decided by the court during the pendency of the suit then it will operate as Res-Judicata at all
the subsequent suits. For example, orders of maintainability of suits, question regarding jurisdiction
of courts etc if decided once by the court then it will not be reopened in same proceedings. The only
remedy for the aggrieved party is to file an appeal against the interim order of lower court in the
higher court of law.

10
CONCLUSION

The over stated contentions are those where the rule of Res- Judicata is applied but there are some
contentions where this rule isn't applied as they're the exceptions to the rule of Res- Judicata or the
rule of persuasiveness and these are the cases in which the decree is attained by fraud also the
provision of sec- 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 won't applied, when the former Special Leave
solicitation in the Supreme Court of India is dismissed without the speaking order there also sec- 11
of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 won't applied, where the party waives off the plea of Res- Judicata
or they didn't informed the court in the posterior proceedings that the matter is barred under sec- 11
of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 also its vittles won't be applied, where the court which tries the
suit is unskillful or having no governance to try the suit also in posterior proceedings the matter
won't be barred by doctrine of Res- Judicata, when there are change in the circumstances and there's
change in law and that changed law created new rights and new data also posterior proceedings of
suit won't be barred by Res- Judicata Principle. Bare Findings of the Court won't operate as Res-
Judicata this view point has been given byHon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ganga Baiv. Vijay
Kumar and others, 1974 AIR( SC) 1126 held that Appeal in High Court will lie only against the
decree and order passed by the lower court but not lie on the findings given by the lower court. Also,
InSmt. Daropati Deviv. Sohan Lal and another, 1984( 1) RLR 414, in this case it was held that Plea
must be taken by Repliers in their written statements that the suit is barred by Res- Judicata. If no
Plea is taken by Repliers in written statements of Res- Judicata also there can not be connection of
Doctrine of Res- Judicata Incipiently, by explaining all the important points above in this
composition regarding the rule of persuasiveness or Principle of Res- Judicata, the anthology will
come to know that Principle of Res- Judicata is the backbone of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and
also this is one of the most important principle in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

11
REFERENCES:

1. Studoc.com
2. Indiankanoon
3. Ipleaders
4. Scribid.com

12