The rule of Res-judicata is based upon the principle that no person should be vexed twice for the same cause of action, and the interest of the State behind this principle is that, there should be an end to litigation. The suit was not collusive. The plea of res judicata may be sustained, without anything more, if the questions at issue and the parties are the same, subject of course to the other conditions prescribed by section 11, C. Hence, such orders are not affected by res sub judice. When the decision was given on merits by the trial court after contest, it operates as res judicata even if appeal there from might have been dismissed on some preliminary grounds like limitation.
This he cannot do as it was his duty to have resisted the former suit on the ground of fraud and coercion as well. Res judicata bars any party to a from suing again on the same claim or issue that has previously been decided by the court. In order to ascertain what matter was heard and finally decided, the pleadings and the judgment should be examined. Two conflicting decrees passed by two competent courts on the same subject-matter: Where two conflicting decrees are passed by two competent Courts on the same subject-matter, the subsequent decree in conflict of the earlier decree will be hit by the principle of res judicata which makes the finality of the litigation. But then the section does not apply. These cannot operate as res judicata in subsequent suit filed by wakf Board for deciding character of wakf property under Wakf Act. The suit is decreed in spite of this objection.
It is true that the principle of constructive res judicata does not apply to execution proceedings, but it is well established that where a definite point was raised and a definite finding recorded on it by the court, the same question cannot be reagitated in execution department. For example, a single claim may be struck from a complaint, or a single factual issue may be removed from reconsideration in the new trial. The Court held that the Supreme Court is a competent authority to alter the law when it declared it to be unconstitutional. In order that a matter may be said to have been heard and finally decided, the decision in the former suit has to be on merits. An erroneous decision on the jurisdiction of another tribunal may be called a decision on a point of law, but unless it is altered in appeal, it is res judicata as far as parties to that suit are concerned.
It is incontrovertible that where a petition under Article 226 is dismissed in limine without a speaking order, such a dismissal would not Dismissal of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a High Court in limine, without a speaking order, does not normally constitute res judicata for a subsequent suit on same facts. The matter would be directly and substantially in issue if the issue was decided and judgment was, in fact, based upon that decision. Thus if an application for the adjournment of a suit is rejected, a subsequent application for the same purpose even if based on the same facts, is not barred on the application of any rule of res judicata, but would be rejected for the same grounds on which the original application was refused. A party may be joined as a defendant in a suit merely because his presence is necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit. During the pendency of the civil suit for restraining the employer from terminating the services of an employee, he was dismissed.
It was an important plea which was within the knowledge of the respondent and could well have been taken in the writ petition, but he contented himself by raising the other pleas that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the case against him in the departmental inquiry and that the action taken against him was mala fide. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1 of 1961 the Prescribed Authority has power to re-open the matter of determination of surplus land within two years from the date of notification to rectify any apparent mistake which was there on the face of the record. It is settled by a large number of decisions that for a judgment to operate as res judicata between or among co-defendants, it is necessary to establish: 1 that there was a conflict between co-defendants; 2 that it was necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the relief which the plaintiff claimed in the suit; and 3 that the court actually decided the question. . As long as a mater is pending adjudication, a court may vary its earlier orders, but the parties cannot be allowed to re-open such matters but a court having finally decided a mater cannot re-open the same at a later stage of the proceedings. A court would dismiss the second lawsuit under res judicata because the second lawsuit is based on the same negligence and the same injury claim.
Express decision is not necessary, it being sufficient that an adjudication on the matter is necessarily involved. Object of Res-judicata The object of Res-judicata is to prevent a question which has already been decided to be re-agitated. Courts of law are in no way authorised to alter the rights of parties. Once a court makes a final decision, it enters a final judgment in the case. Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd.
The principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated is of general importance and is not limited by the specific words of the Code in this respect. It has been held by their lordships of the Judicial Committee in a number of cases that the section is not exhaustive. A final binding adjudication inter partes on a mixed question of fact as well as law, will not in any manner be affected by any subsequent decision not accepting the principle laid down in the former decision. It is not safe to extend the principle of res judicata to such an extent so as to found it on mere guess work. The general principles presuppose that the decision was given by a court competent to decide it and finality attaches to that decision. The second is that it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation and the third is that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct, in other words, it is in everybody's interests, the parties and the general public, to prevent or preclude losing parties from bringing the same case against the same adversary over and over in an attempt to win. If by an erroneous interpretation of the statute the court holds that it has no jurisdiction, the question would not operate as res judicata.
This rule applies to trial of a suit not the institution thereof. If a plaintiff cannot get at his right without trying and deciding a case between co-defendants, the court will try and decide the case, and the co-defendants will be bound by the decree. Both courts should be of concurrent jurisdiction: The court while trying the former suit must have been competent to try the subsequent suit. Example of claim preclusion in res judicata: Nathaniel was injured when he was rear-ended while waiting at a stoplight. The binding character of judgment of courts of competent jurisdiction is in essence a part of the rule of law on which the administration of justice, so much emphasised by the Constitution, is founded and a judgment of the High Court under Article 226 passed after a hearing on the merits must bind the parties till set aside in appeal as provided by the Constitution and cannot be permitted to be circumvented by a petition under Article 32. The issue must directly and substantially arise in a later suit between the same parties or their privies.