2/10/2015

ResJudicataAuthorJayantBhatt

L e g a l S e r v i c e I n d i a . c o m

ResJudicata
Chatwithus(2PM9PMIST)

ibiboads

JayantBhattVthYear,AmityLawSchool,NewDelhi
SearchOn:

LawsinIndia
Search

Introduction
RESJUDICATAmeans"athingdecided"inLatin.Itisacommonlawdoctrinemeanttobarrelitigationofcasesbetweenthesame
partiesinCourt.Onceafinaljudgmenthasbeenhandeddowninalawsuitsubsequentjudgeswhoareconfrontedwithasuitthatis
identicaltoorsubstantiallythesameastheearlieronewillapplyresjudicatatopreservetheeffectofthefirstjudgment.Thisisto
preventinjusticetothepartiesofacasesupposedlyfinished,butperhapsmostlytoavoidunnecessarywasteofresourcesinthecourt
system.Resjudicatadoesnotmerelypreventfuturejudgmentsfromcontradictingearlierones,butalsopreventsthemfrom
multiplyingjudgments,soaprevailingplaintiffcouldnotrecoverdamagesfromthedefendanttwiceforthesameinjury.
Resjudicataincludestworelatedconcepts:claimpreclusion,andissuepreclusionalsocalledcollateralestoppel,thoughsometimes
resjudicataisusedmorenarrowlytomeanonlyclaimpreclusion.Claimpreclusionfocusesonbarringasuitfrombeingbroughtagain
onalegalcauseofactionthathasalreadybeenfinallydecidedbetweentheparties.Issuepreclusionbarstherelitigationoffactual
issuesthathavealreadybeennecessarilydeterminedbyajudgeorjuryaspartofanearlierclaim.Itisoftendifficulttodetermine
which,ifeither,oftheseapplytolaterlawsuitsthatareseeminglyrelated,because
manycausesofactioncanapplytothesamefactualsituationandviceversa.Thescopeofanearlierjudgmentisprobablythemost
difficultquestionthatjudgesmustresolveinapplyingresjudicata.Sometimesmerelypartofasubsequentlawsuitwillbeaffected,
suchasasingleclaimbeingstruckfromacomplaint,orasinglefactualissuebeingremovedfromreconsiderationinthenewtrial.
Resjudicatadoesnotrestricttheappealsprocess,whichisconsideredalinearextensionofthesamelawsuitasittravelsupand
backdowntheappellatecourtladder.Appealsareconsideredtheappropriatemannerbywhichtochallengeajudgmentratherthan
tryingtostartanewtrial,andoncetheappealsprocessisexhaustedorwaived,resjudicatawillapplyeventoajudgmentthatis
contrarytolaw.
However,therearelimitedexceptionstoresjudicatathatallowapartytoattackthevalidityoftheoriginaljudgment,evenoutsideof
appeals.Theseexceptionsusuallycalledcollateralattacksaretypicallybasedonproceduralorjurisdictionalissues,basednoton
thewisdomoftheearliercourt'sdecisionbutitsauthorityorcompetencetoissueit.Acollateralattackismorelikelytobeavailable
andtosucceedinjudicialsystemswithmultiplejurisdictions,suchasunderfederalgovernments,orwhenadomesticcourtisasked
toenforceorrecognizethejudgmentofaforeigncourt.
Whenasubsequentcourtfailstoapplyresjudicataandrendersacontradictoryverdictonthesameclaimorissue,ifathirdcourtis
facedwiththesamecase,itwilllikelyapplya"lastintime"rule,givingeffectonlytothelaterjudgment,eventhoughtheresultcame
outdifferentlythesecondtime.Thissituationisnotunheardof,asitistypicallytheresponsibilityofthepartiestothesuittobringthe
earliercasetothejudge'sattention,andthejudgemustdecidehowbroadlytoapplyit,orwhethertorecognizeitinthefirstplace.
PublicInterestLitigation,insimplewords,means,litigationfiledinacourtoflaw,fortheprotectionof"PublicInterest",suchas
pollution,Terrorism,Roadsafety,constructionalhazardsetc.PublicInterestLitigationisnotdefinedinanystatuteorinanyact.Ithas
beeninterpretedbyjudgestoconsidertheintentofpublicatlarge.Although,themainandonlyfocusofsuchlitigationisonly"Public
Interest"therearevariousareaswhereaPublicInterestLitigationcanbefiled.Fore.g.
#Violationofbasichumanrightsofthepoor
#Contentorconductofgovernmentpolicy
#Compelmunicipalauthoritiestoperformapublicduty.
#Violationofreligiousrightsorotherbasicfundamentalrights.
ResJudicataAsDefinedUnderCodeOfCivilProcedure,1908
Section11oftheCodeofCivilProcedureembodiesthedoctrineofresjudicataortheruleofconclusivenessofajudgement,
astothepointsdecidedeitheroffact,oroflaw,oroffactandlaw,ineverysubsequentsuitbetweenthesameparties.Itenactsthat
onceamatterisfinallydecidedbyacompetentcourt,nopartycanbepermittedtoreopenitinasubsequentlitigation.Intheabsence
ofsucharuletherewillbenoendtolitigationandthepartieswouldbeputtoconstanttrouble,harassmentandexpenses.The
doctrinehasbeenexplainedinthesimplestpossiblemannerbyDasGupta,J.,?the
principleofResJudicataisbasedontheneedofgivingafinalitytothejudicialdecisions.Whatitsaysisthatoncearesjudicata,it
shallnotbeadjudgedagain.Primarilyitappliesasbetweenpastlitigationandfuturelitigation.Whenamatterwhetheronaquestion
offactoraquestionoflawhasbeendecidedbetweentwopartiesinonesuitorproceedingandthedecisionisfinal,eitherbecause
noappealwastakentoahighercourtorbecausetheappealwasdismissed,ornoappeallies,neitherpartywillbeallowedinafuture
suitorproceedingbetweenthesamepartiestocanvasthematteragain.
Section11oftheCodeofCivilProcedure,1908definesResJudicataas:
NoCourtshalltryanysuitorissueinwhichthematterdirectlyandsubstantiallyinissuehasbeendirectlyandsubstantiallyinissuein
aformersuitbetweenthesameparties,orbetweenpartiesunderwhomtheyoranyofthemclaim,litigatingunderthesametitle,ina
Courtcompetenttotrysuchsubsequentsuitorthesuitinwhichsuchissuehasbeensubsequentlyraised,andhasbeenheardand
finallydecidedbysuchCourt.
ExplanationI:Theexpression"formersuit"shalldenoteasuitwhichhasbeendecidedpriortothesuitinquestionwhetherornotit
wasinstitutedpriorthereto.
ExplanationII.Forthepurposesofthissection,thecompetenceofaCourtshallbedeterminedirrespectiveofanyprovisionsastoa
rightofappealfromthedecisionofsuchCourt.
ExplanationIII.Thematterabovereferredtomustintheformersuithavebeenallegedbyonepartyandeitherdeniedoradmitted,
expresslyorimpliedly,bytheother.
ExplanationIV.Anymatterwhichmightandoughttohavebeenmadegroundofdefenceorattackinsuchformersuitshallbe
deemedtohavebeenamatterdirectlyandsubstantiallyinissueinsuchsuit.
ExplanationV.Anyreliefclaimedintheplaint,whichisnotexpresslygrantedbythedecree,shall,forthepurposesofthissection,be
deemedtohavebeenrefused.
ExplanationVI.Wherepersonslitigatebonafideinrespectofpublicrightorofaprivaterightclaimedincommonforthemselvesand
others,allpersonsinterestedinsuchrightshall,forthepurposesofthissection,bedeemedtoclaimunderthepersonssolitigating.

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rju.htm

1/5

2/10/2015

ResJudicataAuthorJayantBhatt
ExplanationVII.Theprovisionsofthissectionshallapplytoaproceedingfortheexecutionofadecreeandreferenceinthissectionto
anysuit,issueorformersuitshallbeconstruedasreferences,respectively,toproceedingsfortheexecutionofthedecree,question
arisinginsuchproceedingandaformerproceedingfortheexecutionofthatdecree.
ExplanationVIII.AnissueheardandfinallydecidedbyaCourtoflimitedjurisdiction,competenttodecidesuchissue,shalloperateas
resjudicatainassubsequentsuit,notwithstandingthatsuchCourtoflimitedjurisdictionwasnotcompetenttotrysuchsubsequent
suitorthesuitinwhichsuchissuehasbeensubsequentlyraised.Thedoctrineofresjudicataisbasedonthreemaxims
aNemodebetlisvaxariproeademcausanomanshouldbevexedtwiceforthesamecause
bInterestrepublicaeutsitfinislitiumitisintheinterestofthestatethatthereshouldbeanendtoalitigationand
cRejudicataproveritateoccipiturajudicialdecisionmustbeacceptedascorrect
AsobservedbySirLawrenceJenkins,theruleofresjudicata,whilefoundedonaccountofprecedent,isdictatedbyawisdomisforall
times
ReferringtotheopinionoftheJudgesexpressedin1776intheDuchesofKingston'sCase2Smith'sL.C.13thedn.644,645.to
whichreferencehasbeeninvariablymadeinmostofthecasesbytheIndiancourts.Itwassaidinthatcase:
"Fromthevarietyofcasesrelativetojudgmentsbeinggiveninevidenceincivilsuits,thesetwodeductionsseemtofollowas
generallytrue:firstthejudgmentofaCourtofconcurrentjurisdiction,directlyuponthepoints,isasaplea,abar,orasevidence
conclusive,betweenthesameparties,uponthesamematter,directlyinquestioninanotherCourtsecondlythatthejudgmentofa
Courtofexclusivejurisdiction,directlyuponthepoint,is,inlikemanner,conclusiveuponthesamematter,betweenthesameparties,
comingincidentallyinquestioninanotherCourt,foradifferentpurpose.Butneitherthejudgmentofaconcurrentorexclusive
jurisdictionisevidenceofanymatterwhichcamecollaterallyinquestion,thoughwithintheirjurisdiction,norofanymatterincidentally
cognizable,norofanymattertobeinferredbyargumentfromthejudgment."
Section11containstheruleofconclusivenessofthejudgmentwhichisbasedpartlyonthemaximofRomanJurisprudence"Interest
reipublicaeutsitfinishlitium"itconcernstheStatethattherebeanendtolawsuitsandpartlyonthemaxim"Nemodebetlisvexari
prounaateademcausa"nomanshouldbevexedtwiceoverforthesamecause.Thesectiondoesnotaffectthejurisdictionofthe
Courtbutoperatesasapartothetrialofthesuitorissue,ifthematterinthesuitwasdirectlyandsubstantiallyinissueandfinally
decidedintheprevioussuitbetweenthesamepartieslitigatingunderthesametitleinaCourt,competenttotrythesubsequentsuit
inwhichsuchissuehasbeenraised.
InCORPUSJURISvol.34,p.743,ithasbeenstated:ResJudicataisaruleofuniversallawpervadingeverywellregulated
systemofjurisprudenceandisputupontwogrounds,embodiedinvariousmaximsofthecommonlawtheone,publicpolicyand
necessity,whichmakesittotheinterestofthestatethatthereshouldbeanendtolitigationtheother,thehardshiptotheindividual
thatheshouldnotbevexedtwiceforthesamecause.
Thus,thisdoctrineofresjudicataisafundamentalconceptbasedonpublicpolicyandprivateinterest.Itisconceivedinthe
largerpublicinterest,whichrequiresthateverylitigationmustcometoanend.Ittherefor,appliestocivilsuits,executionproceedings,
arbitrationproceedings,taxationmatters,writpetitions,administrativeorders,interimorders,criminalproceedings,etc.
Anordinarylitigationbeingapartyorclaimingunderapartyofaformersuitcannotavoidtheapplicabilityofsection11ofCPCasitis
mandatoryexceptonthegroundoffraudorcollusionasthecasemaybe.ResJudicatainfactmeansThingwhichhadbeenadjudged
theessentialingredientsofwhicharetobeconsideredwhiledecidingwhetheraparticularjudgmentoperatedasresjudicataornotbe
postulatedasfollows:
#Matterwhichwasdirectlyandsubstantiallyinissueinformersuitmustbedirectlyandsubstantiallyissueinthesubsequentsuit
also.
#Boththeformerandsubsequentsuitshouldhavebeenbetweenthepartiesorbetweenthepartieslitigatingundersometitles.
#Theformersuitshouldhavebeendecidedbycompetentcourtwhichcantrysubsequentsuitalso.
#Anymatter,whichmightandoughttohavebeenmadeagroundofdefenceorattackinsuchformersuitshallbedeemedtohave
beenamatterdirectlyandsubstantiallyinissueineachsuit.
Theonusofproofliesonthepartyrelyingonthetheoryofresjudicata.
SECTION11OFCPCISMANDATORY
Theprovisionsofsection11ofCPCarenotdirectorybutmandatory.Thejudgmentinaformersuitcanbeavoidedonlybytaking
recoursetosection44oftheIndianEvidenceActonthegroundoffraudorcollusion.Whereseveraldefendantsarethere,inasuitthe
collusionofoneofthemaloneisnotenoughtoavoidtheoperationofruleofresjudicata.Grossnegligenceisdifferentfromfraudand
collusion.
Theprovisionsofsection11oftheCodearemandatoryandtheordinarylitigantwhoclaimsunderoneofthepartiestotheformersuit
canonlyavoiditsprovisionsbytakingadvantageofsection44oftheIndianEvidenceActwhichdefineswithprecisionthegroundsof
suchevidenceasfraudorcollusion.Itisnotforthecourttotreatnegligenceorgrossnegligenceasfraudorcollusionunlessfraudor
collusionistheproperinferencefromfacts.Otherfactorsinexceptiontosection11beingpresentmustbelitigatingbonafideandthe
fulfillmentofthisisnecessaryfortheapplicabilityofthesection.TheaboveratiodecidendiwaslaiddowninJallurVenkataSeshayya
v.ThadvicondaKoteswaraRaoandOthers.Thisrepresentativesuitwasbroughtbysomepersonsonbehalfofpublicinterestfor
declaringcertaintemplespublictemplesandforsettingasidealienationofendowedpropertybythemanagerthereof.Asimilarsuit
wasbroughtsomeyearsagobytwopersonsandthesuitwasdismissedonthegroundsthatthetempleswereprivatetemplesand
thepropertyendowedtothetemplebeingprivateendowment,thealienationthereofwerevalid.Theplaintiffsadmittedthattheycould
bedeemedtobepersonsclaimingundertheplaintiffsinpriorsuitandtheissueinboththesuitswassame.
Itwascontendedhoweverbythemthatfindinginthepriorsuitcouldnotberesjudicataasagainsttheminasmuchastherewas
grossnegligenceonthepartoftheplaintiffsinthatsuitinnotproducingthedocumentsnecessaryforthedecisionofthesuitintheir
favourandinnotplacingtheirevidencebeforetheCourtandPrivyCouncilheldthatnocaseoffraudapartfromcollusionbeing
suggested,theplaintiffs,wereboundtoestablisheitherthatthedecreeinpriorsuitwasobtainedbycollusionbetweenthepartiesor
thatthelitigationbytheplaintiffsinpriorsuitwasnotbonafide.Theplaintiffsbasedtheircaseentirelyoninferencestobedrawnfrom
allegedgrossnegligenceonthepartoftheplaintiffsinthepriorsuit.ThefindingofgrossnegligencebytheTrialCourtwasfarfroma
findingofintentionalsuppressionofthedocumentswhichwouldamounttowantof
bonafideorcollusiononthepartoftheplaintiffsinpriorsuit.Therebeingnoevidenceinthesuitestablishingeitherwantofbonafide
ofcollusiononthepartofplaintiffsasresjudicata.
InBeliram&BrothersandOthersv.ChaudariMohammedAfzalandOthersitwasheldthatwhereitisestablishedthattheminorssuit
wasnotbroughtbytheguardianoftheminorsbonafidebutwasbroughtincollusionwiththedefendantsandthesuitwasafictitious
suit,adecreeobtainedthereinisoneobtainedbyfraudandcollusionwithinthemeaningofsection44oftheIndianEvidenceAct,and
doesnotoperateresjudicata.Theprincipleofresjudicatainsection11CPCismodifiedbysection44oftheIndianEvidenceAct,and
theprincipleswillnotapplyifanyofthethreegroundsmentionedinSection44
exists.
Generalprinciplescannotbeappliedinawaymakingsection11CPCnugatory.InSarlaBalaDeviv.ShyamPrasadChatterjee,thee
DivisionBenchofCalcuttaHighCourtheld:
Itisundoubtedlytruethattheprinciplesofresjudicataapplytoproceedingsotherthansuitsincludingproceedingsinexecution.It
mustbetakenasheldbytheSupremeCourtthattheprinciplesofconstructiveresjudicataarealsoapplicabletoexecution
proceedings.Buttheconditionsofapplicabilityoftheprinciplesofresjudicataactualorconstructivecontainedinsection11CPCmust
becompliedwithinsuchcasesasfaraspossible.Itisnotthelawthatwhenacourtappliestheprinciplesanalogoustoresjudicata
thatcourtcanoverridetheconditionsspecifiedinsection11CPC.

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rju.htm

2/5

2/10/2015

ResJudicataAuthorJayantBhatt
TheCalcuttaHighCourtinfactfollowedanearlierdecisionofthesamecourtinAbinashChandrav.MadhusudanMajumdarand
another,section11doesnotcodifyorcrystallizetheentirelawregardingthedoctrineresjudicata.Itdealswithsomeofthe
circumstancesunderwhichapreviousdecisionwilloperateasresjudicatabutnotwithall.Wherecircumstancesotherthanprovided
forinsection11existsthegeneralprincipleunderlyingtheruleofresjudicatamaybeinvokedinpropercaseswithoutrecoursetothe
provisiontotheprovisionsofthatsection.Butobviouslyitdoesnotfollowthattheprovisionofsection11maybefloutedoroverridden
orthattheprohibitionsorreservationexpressorimpliedinthatsectionmaybeignoredbyreferencetogeneralprinciplesofres
judicatainacasetowhichsection11applies.
Thegeneralprinciplesofresjudicatacannotbeinvokedinacasewhenthecourtwhichtriedthefirstsuithadnojurisdictionto
trythesubsequentsuitinasmuchassection11isexplicitonthispointandhenceaformerdecisionbycourtofsmallcauseswillnot
operateresjuducata.Thedecisiononanissuebyacourtofinferiorjurisdictiondoesnotoperateasabartothetrialoftheissuebya
courtofsuperiorjurisdictioninasubsequentsuitbutthecorrectnessofthisviewisdoubtfulnowinviewoftheAmendingActof1976.
InthiscasethemajorityoftheirLordshipsofthesupremeCourtheldthattheprovisionsofsection11CPCarenotexhaustivewith
respecttoanearlierdecisionoperatingasresjudicatabetweenthesamepartiesonthesamematterincontroversyinasubsequent
suitandongeneralprinciplesofresjudicata,anypreviousdecisiononamatterofcontroversydecidedafterfullcontestorafter
affordingfairopportunitytothepartiestoprovetheircasebyacourtcompetenttodecideitwilloperateasresjudicataina
subsequentregularsuit.Thegeneralprovisionsofresjudicataarewiderthantheprovisionsofsection11CPCandalsoapplyto
casesnotcomingwithinthefourcornersofthesectionbutifthecasefailswithinthetermsofsection
11CPCconditionsofthesectionmustbestrictlycompliedwith.Thegeneralprinciplesofresjudicataareapplicablewherethe
previousdecisionshasnotbeengiveninacivilsuitthoughapleaofresjudicataisraisedinasubsequentcivilsuitbutwhereboththe
proceedingsarecivilsuitsthegeneralprinciplesofresjudicatahavenoapplicationandthecasemustbeconfinedtothefourcorners
ofsection11CPC.
Wherethecourtisdealingwithasuittheonlygroundonwhichresjudicatacanbeurgedagainstsuchasuitwouldbetheprovisions
ofSection11CPCandnoother.ScopeoftheprincipleofresjudicataisnotconfinedtowhatiscontainedinSection11butofmore
generalapplication.TheruleofresjudicataascontainedinSection11oftheCPChasnodoubtsometechnicalaspectsforinstance
theruleofconstructiveresjudicatamaybesaidtobetechnicalbutthebasisonwhichthesaidrulerestsisfoundedonconsideration
ofpublicpolicy.ThedoctrineofresjudicataisadoctrineofwideimportandSection11ofCPCisnotexhaustiveofitandthereishigh
authorityfortheviewthattheprincipleofresjudicatamayapplyapartfromthelimitedprovisionsofCPC.Section11isnotexhaustive
ofthegeneralprinciplesofresjudicata.Itishoweverexhaustiveinrespectofthecaseswhichdirectlycomewithinitsambitinthose
casesifSection11doesnotstrictlyapplythecourtcannotinvokethegeneralprinciplesofresjudicata.Theprincipleof
conclusivenessofjudgmentismuchwiderandisapartofthegeneralprinciplesofresjudicataandthoseprincipleshavebeenheld
byauthoritiestobegoodprinciplesapartfromtheprovisionsofCPC.Section11isnotexhaustiveofthecircumstancesinwhichan
issuemayberesjudicata.Adecisioninordertoconstituteresjudicataneednotnecessarilyhavebeengiveninapriorsuit.The
principlewhichpreventsthesamecausebeingtwicelitigatedisofgeneralapplicationandisnotlimitedbythespecificwordsof
Section11CPCinthisrespectthoughaproceedingforscalingdownadebtundertheMadrasAgriculturistsReliefActisanoriginal
proceedingandnotasuitthedecisionoftheCourtscalingdownthedecreeasregardstheamountpayableunderitwouldberes
judicatabetweenthepartiesinsubsequentproceedings.Section11isnotexhaustiveofthecircumstancesinwhichtheprinciplesof
resjudicatamaybeappliedbutwhenacasefallswithinthepurviewofSection11CPCalltherequirementsaretobesatisfied.
TheprincipleofResjudicatahasbeenheldtobeofwiderapplicationonthebasisofthewiderprincipleofthefinalityof
decisionbyCourtsoflawandadecisionunderSection12oftheU.P.AgriculturistsReliefActof1934washeldtooperateasRes
judicataSection11CPCwhichembodiestheprincipleofResjudicatahasbeenheldtobenotexhaustiveandeventhoughamatter
maynotbedirectlycoveredbytheprovisionsofthatsectionthemattermaystillbeResJudicataongeneralprinciples.Section11is
notexhaustivestatementofdoctrineofResJudicataandtheprinciplehasawiderapplication
thaninwarrantedbystrictlanguageofthesection.TheDivisionBenchoftheMadrasHighCourtinArikapudiBalakotayyav.
YadlapalliNagayyaheldasfollows:
#ItisundoubtedlythelawthattheDoctrineofResJudicataisnotconfinedtodecisionsinasuitandthatthedoctrineappliesevento
decisionsrenderedinproceedingswhicharenotsuitsbuthowfarthedecisionwhichisrenderedinanoriginalproceedingswillbind
thepartiesdependsupontheconsiderations.AdecisiongiveninaproceedingsotherthanasuitmaystilloperateasResJudicata
substantialrightsofthepartiesaredetermined.ButifthedecisionisgiveninasummaryproceedingitdoesnotoperateasRes
Judicata.Proceedingsundersection842MadrasHinduReligiousEndowmentsAct,
cannotbesaidtobesummaryproceedingseventhoughtheremaybenorightofappeal.Thequestionofresjudicatadoesnot
dependontheapplicabilityofthedecision,whichisputforwardasconstitutingresjudicata.Thatquestioncomesinincidentallytosee
ifproceedingsundersection842isofasummarynature.
ThedecisionoftheDistrictJudgetherefore,operatesasResJudicatainasubsequentproceedingsbetweenthesameparties.
ThoughSection11ofCPCislargelymodifiedeventhenitisnotexhaustive.Thepleaofresjudicatastillremainsapartfromthe
separateprovisionsofCPC.ThestatementofdoctrineofresjudicatacontainedinSection11ofCPCisnotexhaustiveandtherefore
recoursemayproperlybehadtothedecisionsoftheEnglishCourtsforthepurposeofascertainingthegeneralprinciplesgoverning
theapplicationofthedoctrine.Thetermsofsection11arenottoberegardedasexhaustive.Thebindingforceofajudgementin
probateproceedingsdependsuponthesection11butuponthegeneralprinciplesoflaw.TheruleofResJudicatathoughmaybe
tracedtoanEnglishsourceitembodiesadoctrineinnowayopposedcommentators.Theapplicationoftheruleofresjudicata
thereforebytheCourtsinIndiashouldbeincludedbynotechnicalconsiderationofformbutbymatterofsubstancewithinthelimit
allowedbylaw.
ResJudicataAndPublicInterestLitigation
Eveninapublicinterestlitigationprocedurallawisapplicablethoughnotstrictly.Hence,theprincipleofresjudicatais
alsoapplicable.Wherethepriorpublicinterestlitigationrelatestomillegalmining,subsequentpublicinterestlitigationtoprotect
environmentisnotbarred.InRuralLitigationAndEntitlementKendrav.StateofU.P.itwasheldonthisaspect:
Thewritpetitionsbeforeusarenotinterpartydisputesandhavebeenraisedbywayofpublicinterestlitigationandthe
controversybeforethecourtisastowhetherforsocialsafetyandforcreatingahazardlessenvironmentforthepeopletolivein,
miningintheareashouldbepermittedorstopped.Wemaynotbetakentohavesaidthatforpublicinterestlitigations,procedural
lawsdonotapply.Atthesametimeithastoberememberedthateverytechnicalityintheprocedurallawisnotavailableasadefense
whenamatterofgravepublicimportanceisforconsiderationbeforethecourt.Evenifitissaidthattherewasafinalorder,ina
disputeofthistypeitwouldbedifficulttoentertainthepleaofresjudicata.Aswehavealreadypointedoutwhentheorderof12th
march,1985reportedinAIR1985SC652,wasmade,noreferencetotheForestConservationActof1980hadbeendone.Weare
oftheviewthatleavingthequestionopenforexaminationinfuturewouldleadtounnecessarymultiplicityofproceedingsandwould
beagainsttheinterestsofthesociety.Itismeteandproperasalsointheinterestofthepartiesthattheentirequestionistakeninto
accountatthisstage.
Undoubtedly,theEnvironmentProtectionAct,1986hascomeintoforcewitheffectfrom19tyhNovember,1986.UnderthisAct
powerisvestedintheCentralGovernmenttotakemeasurestoprotectandimprovetheenvironment.Thesewritpetitionswerefiled
asearlyas1983morethanthreeyearsbeforetheActcameintoforce.ThisCourtappointedseveralexpertcommittees,received
theretheirreportsandonthebasisofmaterialsplacedbeforeit,madedirections,partlyfinal
andpartlyinterlocutory,inregardtocertainminesinthearea.Severaldirectionsfromtimetotimehavebeenmadebythiscourt.As
manyasfourreportableordershavebeengiven.Theseveralpartiesandtheircounselhavebeenheardfordaystogetherondifferent
issuesduringthethreeandaquarteryearsofthependencyoftheproceedings.ThisActdoesnotpurporttoandperhapscouldnot
takeawaythejurisdictionofthiscourttodealwithacaseofthistype.Inconsiderationofthesefacts,wedonotthinkthereisany
justificationtodeclinetheexerciseofjurisdictionatthisstage.Ordinarilythe
courtwouldnotentertainadisputefortheadjudicationofwhichaspecialprovisionhasbeenmadebylawbutthatruleisnotattracted
inthepresentinthepresentsituationinthesecases.

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rju.htm

3/5

2/10/2015

ResJudicataAuthorJayantBhatt
TheconceptofPublicInterestLitigation,aninnovationofthejudicialactivismofIndiaduringthathasindeedprovedtobeaboonto
thedowntrodden,oppressedandexploitedsectionsofsocietyforprovidingthemwitheasyaccesstojustice.
Conclusion
TheprincipleofResJudicatadoesnotapplystrictlytopublicinterestlitigations.TheprocedurallawsarenotfullyapplicabletoPIL
cases.Wherethepriorpublicinterestrelatestoillegalmining,subsequentpublicinterestlitigationtoprotectenvironmentisnot
barred.Though,theprovisionsofsection11oftheCodearemandatoryandtheordinarylitigantwhoclaimsunderoneoftheparties
totheformersuitcanonlyavoiditsprovisionsbytakingadvantageofsection44oftheIndianEvidenceActwhichdefineswith
precisionthegroundsofsuchevidenceasfraudorcollusion.Itisnotforthecourttotreat
negligenceorgrossnegligenceasfraudorcollusionunlessfraudorcollusionistheproperinferencefromfacts.Otherfactorsin
exceptiontosection11beingpresentmustbelitigatingbonafideandthefulfillmentofthisisnecessaryfortheapplicabilityofthe
section.
SincetheprimaryobjectofResJudicataistobringanendtolitigation,thereisnoreasonnottoextendthedoctrinetopublic
interestlitigation.InForwardConstructionCo.v.PrabhatMandal,theSupremeCourtwasdirectlycalledupontodecidethequestion.
Theapexcourtheldthattheprinciplewouldapplytopublicinterestlitigationprovideditwasabonafidelitigation.
InanothercaseofRamdasNayakv.UnionofIndia,thecourtobserved:
Itisarepetitivelitigationontheverysameissuecomingupbeforethecourtsagainandagaininthegrabofpublicinterest
litigation.Itishightimetoputanendtothesame.

ibiboads

***************
EndNotes:
1.SatyadhyanGhosalv.DeorajinDebi,AIR1960SC941
2.SatyadhyanGhosalv.DeorajinDebi,AIR1960SC941atp.943
3.SheoparsanSinghv.RamnandanSingh,AIR1916PC78
4.GulabchandChhotalalParikhv.StateofBombaynowGujrat,AIR1965SC1153
5.ManzurulHaqv.HakimMohsinAliAIR1970All.604at605SheodanSinghv.DaryaoKunwarAIR1966SC1332
6.LaxmiGaudav.DAndariGauraAIR1992Ori.5
7.VenkataSeshayyav.KoteswaraRao1937Mad.263
8.Baboov.Mt.Kirpa1950A.A488
9.1937P.C.1
10.VenkataSeshayyav.KoteswaraRao1937Mad.263
11.AIR1948P.C.168at171
12.KunheemaAmmav.BalaKrishnaNairAIR1967Ker.97
13.AnantamoiDAsiv.BholaNathAIR1941Calcutta104
14.Kottamav.SimachalamAIR1969AP76
15.RadhaShyamv.MoolChandAIR1967All.28
16.AIR1981SC2199
17.AIR1965SC1153
18.AIR1961SC1457,Daryaov.State
19.AIR1959SC276,NarayanaChettiarv.AnnamalaiChettiar
20.AIR1957Patna319,BansidharEstateCollieriesandInduatriesLtd.Vs.TheState.
21.AIR1957A.P.842,Seshammavs.Gangaraju.
22.AIR1954Rajasthan4,ShahPremchandvs.Dhanmal.AIR19054Bombay140,Kelavadappavs.Vasun
23.Gauda.
24.AIR1956All.238.Munshivs.ChiranjiSingh.
25.Air1959Patna319,BensidharEstateCollieriesandInduatriesLtd.Vs.TheState.AIR1948Lah.196,
26.BachintKaurvs.KramChand.
27.AIR1952Mad384,SarangapaniAyyangarvs.VenkataNarsimhaAcharyulu.
28.AIR1946Mad.509
29.AIR1947Nagpur247,ManoharVinayakvs.LaxmanAnandRao.AIR1926Cal563
30.AIR121PC11,Hokvs.A.G.ofBengal
31.AIR1932PC161,MaungSeinDonevs.MapanNyun.
32.AIR1930PC22,KalipadaDevs.DurjapadaDas.
33.AIR1988SC2187
34.AIR1986SC391
35.AIR1995Bom235

MoreArticles:
JusticeDelayedisJusticeDenied
UrgentNeedofAmendmentinIndianEvidenceAct
DemocracyAndTheLaw
MiscarriageOfJustice

WeofferCopyrightRegistrationServices
RightfromyourDesktop.....

Theauthorcanbereachedat:jayantbhatt@legalserviceindia.com/

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rju.htm

PrintThisArticle

4/5

2/10/2015

ResJudicataAuthorJayantBhatt
134comments

Addacomment

ManiSharma TopCommenterWorksatRetired
AnHcjudgeinTamilnadudisposes5005andaSubJudgeinKeraladisposes2575casesperyear.Ifthisrateisappliedthere
are7500subJudgesand272HCJudgessurplusinIndia.thereisnopolicyforJudgespostshencetheJudiciaryhasbeen
functioninginaHighhandedandarbitrarymanner.Onemaysayinadequateoradequateifanyatransparentpolicyforcreationof
posts.Sincethereisnosuchpolicyhencenoinadequacy.Acaseofrapeandmurderon26.12.12wasdecidedon5.2.13.Then
whyothersaredelayed.Isitequalitybeforejusticeoradramainthenameofjusticetodupeandextractpeople.
ReplyLike

21June15,2014at5:24am

AsishKumarBeheraActivistatWakeUpMyIndiawithASHP
weneedjurysystem
..
ReplyLikeJuly24,2014at12:04pm
BalaSubramanianWorksatRetired
Agreed.OurJudicialsystemneedscompletereorientation.Thereshouldbemoretransparencyinappointmentof
Judges.ThewordsofParkinson"delayisdeadliestformofdenial'holdsgoodintheworkingofJudiciary.
ReplyLike

6October9,2014at9:56pm

JoelSebastianSAPS
idon'tagreewithyourlastview...Theamplitudeandveracityofeachcasesdifferfromeachother...itisthedutyofthe
judiciarytogobeyondreasonability...
ReplyLike

5October20,2014at5:08pm

View6more
BoyPlayKarachi,Pakistan
http://payfunda.biz/invitation/?share=Yasir
ReplyLikeJanuary31at6:35am
View88more
Facebooksocialplugin

Arbitration
CyberLaw
Copyright
Protectyourwebsite
Trademarks
Passport
IncomeTax
Contractlaws
Criminallaws
LokAdalat,legalAid&PIL
SupremeCourtJudgments
LegalLatinmaxims
FamousTrials
DownloadlawForms
FamousQuotes

MedicoLegal
Divorcelaw
Familylaw
PatentForms
Wills
lawibrary
LawArticles
LegalResources
Chequebouncelaws
LawBlog
legalDiscussionForum
OsamaBinLaden
StampDutyCalculator
LinkExchange
BareActs

ConstitutionalLaw
ImmigrationLaw
CompanyLaw
Partnershipfirms
Womanissues
Consumerlaws
CauseLists
HighCourtsinIndia
legalProfession
LawForum
WebSearch
Blogs
Adpage
Sitemap
RSSFeed

LawyersinIndiaSearchbyCity

lawyersinDelhiNewDelhi
lawyersinChennai
lawyersinChandigarh
lawyersinSurat
lawyersinNashik
lawyersinJanjgir
lawyersinIndore
lawyersinAllahabad
lawyersinAgra
lawyersinAhmedabad
lawyersinJodhpur
LawyersinNoida&GrNoida
LawyersinNewYork
LawyersIndia

lawyersinKolkata
lawyersinMumbai
lawyersinBangalore
lawyersinPune
lawyersinHyderabad
lawyersinRajkot
lawyersinNagpur
lawyersinPondicherry
lawyersinJaipur
lawyersinCochin
lawyersinLucknow
InternationalCourts
LawColleges
LawDebates

Home|AboutUs|Privacy|Termsofuse|FAQ|Divorcebymutualconsent|Lawyers|Submitarticle|Sitemap|ContactUs
legalServiceIndia.comisCopyrightedundertheRegistrarofCopyrightActGovtofIndia20002013
ISBNNo:9789382417019

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rju.htm

5/5