Res judicata in Civil Procedure: A Bar to Multiplicity of Litigation

Abstract  

Rest judicata is a fundamental legal doctrine in code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C) that serves to  promote the finality of judgment and prevent re-litigation of issues already decided by a  competent court. Res judicata applies on circumstances like previous judgement must be  rendered by a court with appropriate jurisdiction or else the party involved must be the same  and the issue at stake must be identical. It is a legal doctrine which prevent both parties from  relit gating claims which have already been judged on the basis of final decision by a competent  court. Res judicata has two key components Firstly, identity of the cause of action and secondly, the parties involved in it. When both the parties are sufficiently but insured the  original court’s judgment conclusive then res judicata will apply. This doctrine usually ensure  that legal disputes should be resolved efficiently and also prevent same issue from being  revisited in different codes or their jurisdictions. Significance of the Res judicata in CPC is for  the judicial purpose basically on the grounds of finality of decision , protection of parties , right  promotion of justice , judicial economy, certainty promotion of justice and also consolidation  of claims and it also so as a crucial mechanism for maintaining order efficiency and fairness in  civil litigation and it also Plays crucial role for encouraging comprehensive litigations in  shaping legal strategies also efficient judicial practices all of which are considered very  important for legal practitioners and have a historical background pre and post independence as  well as it’s presence In the Evidence Act and do prevent inconsistent verdict possibility and  make judicial system consistent. So the main purpose or role of doctrine of res judicata is to  make judicial system more stable and organized orderly legal system.

INTRODUCTION  

UNDER [SECTION 11] OF C.P.C (CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE)The doctrine of res judicata  is codified and it says that if the matter already been judged or once court reached to a final  decision on a matter then the same parties cannot file a suit again or re-litigate the issue in  further proceedings and plays very crucial role to maintain integrity of judicial decisions Res  judicata main motto is that judicial resources should not be wasted on the repetitive litigation and should prevent from re-examination of same issues also to promote sense of stability and  predict in the rule of law as well as legal relationship. This doctrine is very important in the  finality of judgments which clearly says once matter is it resolved or final judgment came  then the suit is settled for all time it should not Re-litigate and Court should not be burdened  with cases that that has already resolved. Res judicata also protects rights of parties by  involving parties into repeated legal action over the same issue mostly important for  defendants who can face endless litigation which can be time consuming and financially  draining for the parties. It also bring stability in relationship and transaction by giving  resolution to legal disputes. But at sometime in many other statute there’s use of doctrine such  as Administrative law.

Here comes a brief historical background from where The concept of res judicata origins it  origins from Roman law here final judgment was tough to maintain order and prevent from  endless litigation. Early law basically Medieval England took up this doctrine to avoid  repetition of litigation over same suit. In 19^th century the idea re maked that once matter is  judged it will not be litigated again.

In 20^th century rule of Civil procedure adopted and  gave structured framework of the doctrine and also Difference between claim preclusion and  issue preclusion which is also known Collateral. 

Res judicata Adoption in Various Jurisdiction In U.S both federal and state courts come up  with res judicata including rules and interpretation across jurisdiction Like wise U.K and  other common wealth countries has jurisdiction to res judicata and this system have more  codified rule regarding appeal and finality process. In British colonial era tha doctrine became  formal judicial process with the Indian Evidence Act 1872 as well as Post-independence the  doctrine was embedded when Indian constitution talks of judicial decisions and then C.P.C  codifies it under Section 11 of the code.

Some Key provision under Section 11 of C.P.C are:- It prohibits courts from re-examining a  case that has already litigated and final judgment has been delivered and there’s also a Latin  proverb ‘Nemo debt bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” which means no man should visit  court twice for the same issue. And one is “Res judicata pro veritate occipitur” which means  a matter whose judgement is already given is accepted as correct. Some of the necessities to  full fill where res judicata applies so where the parties are same in both first as well as second  suit or been represented by party to prior action as well as judgement must be on the merits  and final judgment should be happened in the case to apply res judicata and claim should  also be same, Therefore it says parties and claim should be same in both first as well as  second suits( Subject -matter) and Court should also have proper jurisdiction over the matter  otherwise lacking behind in jurisdiction the re judicata wouldn’t applied.

There are two  types res judicata :-

1.) Direct Res judicata it applies when the adjudication occurs in both first as well as second  suit on the same issues so, in this the judgement of the first case will be applied to the current  case going on in the court and

2.) Constructive Res judicata in this party have raised issue in earlier proceedings but failed to do such so in this situation law treat such issues as settled  even if not explicitly decision came. As Res judicata know as Claim preclusion it prevents  parties from re-litigating so there’s an exception if new facts came there might be change In  circumstances or if judgment obtain by doing fraud. There are type of judgement can invoke  it’s principle:- on the basis of merit after going through all evidence and arguments the final  judgment has been given. 

Default judgement in this if defendant failed to respond that time default judgement issued  and invoke this doctrine. Then comes, Dismissed with prejudice plaintiff barred as brings  same issue again and again. At last appeal here if judgment appealed and lower court decision  affirmed by appellate court the judgement holds doctrine effect. 

Now comes Key principles include relationship between two of the doctrine which are some  how similar Doctrine of Res judicata and Doctrine of Estoppel both deals with prevention of  unfairness and ensuring final legal process both deals with finality in legal proceedings res  judicata after final judgment there should not re-examining and on other hand estoppel  prevent party to change it stance that weaken action or representations one talks of outcomes  of case and other one deals with position taken by parties. Res judicata is more a statutory or  common law basically judicial system principle and Estoppel invoke in context of various.  There are other doctrines also compared with Res judicata as discussed Doctrine of Estoppel  and other’s are Collateral estoppel which prevent from re litigate specific issues that already  been decided in previous suit even though involve a different Claim. Laches as this prevent  party assertion claim to unreasonable delay in accepting and other party prejudice. Atlast  comes, Forum shopping seeks favoured jurisdiction for legal claim and can occur before  final judgment. 

Exception of Res-judicata because In certain cases it should be Re-litigate:-

Lack of jurisdiction the case issued by court lacking proper jurisdiction personal or subject  matter than in given judgements Res-judicata will not be applied or in case of Fraud or  misrepresentation if judgement obtain by fraud or misleading the court. If there’s a change in  law also if the parties are different as it applies when parties are same. Specific statutory  provisions. All this exception might be crucial but impact res judicata applicability in other  legal context.

CASE ANALYSIS (K.K VERMA VS. UNION OF INDIA )

This case helps in understanding principles of restudy Carta which is a legal doctrine prevent  same issue being tried in a court after giving a final judgment on its merit. 

Case background:- In this case there was some action and decision of the government which  was affecting K.K Verma and he challenged this action and decision of the government and  in this case it was revolving around that issue which was raised by Verma in the court is  being already adjudicated previously and should be barred from being re-examining or re litigated under the doctrine of res judicata.

So basically in this case the court examined that this case with the same issue has been  addressed previously or decision related to Verma claims were final and Or if the parties are  seen in the case ensuring Verma’s right bean adequately represented in previous proceedings.  So in this case the court held that if the same matter has been adjudicated then the party which  is Verma could not present the same issue again which reinforce that once a legal matter is  settled or the final judgment is given by the court then party cannot continue to contest it  endlessly and this case also define the balancing of the right of individual by the code as well  as maintain the integrity of the judicial system.

Here’s one case where Doctrine of Res judicata will not be applied, Madhusudan V. State of West Bengal (2010) In this case madhusudan challenged our  government notification after this previously adjudicated matter here The issue raised in the  new suit or the petition was not resolved in the previous suit. so the court held that since  previous proceeding did not address specific legal challenges amazed in pleasant suit this  Judy Carter not be involved as ruling reinforce that doctrine applies when specific issue have  been fully adjudicated in previous issues also allow real litigation when new legal question  arises or facts or evidence arises. Likewise there are many more reason bear the rest Judy  Carter would not apply

Challenges & Critiques

Sometimes complex litigation comes with several challenges which can include multiple  parties and claims different jurisdiction evolving facts variety of issues judicial resources as  well as public policy consideration too.

1. Multiple parties:- In multiple parties it comes with diversity of interest parties can have different interest claims with the same facts and if all parties adequately represent then it can be complicated to apply application of res judicata. Even complex litigation  involved numerous claims against multiple parties which make it difficult to ascertain that all issues has been examined or adjudicated or not.
2. Different jurisdiction:- In this it basically means If parties litigate similar issue in different Judas diction then there will be the interpretations which may create complications in applying this Judy Carter across different codes hi inconsistent of  judgment which may undermine principle of finality.
3. Public policy:- This can exist with justice application which are merged may bar legitimate claim and also comes out with the concerns about fairness that’s the lessaccess to justice mostly for parties with less power on sources and also deals with  settlement impact which can be affected parties for future litigation on similar  issuewhich may lead to less willingness compromise.
4. Variety issues:- There can be varieties of issues like interconnected issues in some of the complex cases there is a web involved but with different legal issues and it is difficult in deciding that judgment on one issue Preclude future litigation.
5. Evolving facts & Burden on courts:- As new evidence says new facts emerge after judgment can make difference in the outcome and also can reopen a case to continue on the basis of new facts which can also create a burden on quotes as complex  litigation lead to extensive discovery and prolonged trials and unnecessary delays. So,  taking all this into consideration it is for reform of clarifying C.P.C so there should be  clear rules for Recognition and enforcing foreign judgement and develop managing  process for complex situations and also public awareness and training to judges and  practitioners on doctrine and consistent across cases.

CONCLUSION  

The doctrine of prejudice is cornerstone of legal system principles of the doctrine are essential  for fair and efficient administration of justice for finality in legal proceedings as one scored  rendered a decision on the matter parties can rely on the outcome without looming threat of  relitigation also certainty is crucial not only for parties but also for 3^rd party maybe getting  affected by legal determinations which come up with the kind of they believe in movement in  which individual and business can given legal rights based decision. Res judicata is deeply  rooted in public policy which reflects society’s interest avoiding endless litigation and help in  promoting resolution of dispute. At last this is Judy Carter promotes for our well functioning  of legal framework and five potential reform of doctrine will necessary to ensure meet contemporary justice while preserving its core principle and given landscape of civil  proceedings it evolve will imperative to uphold principle of res judicata adapting  contemporary challenges ensure to serve and preserve the justice. So, Before applying the  doctrine go through comprehensive review of private judgments related to issues and initiate  litigation also clearly document all claims in the pleading for avoiding later challenges based  on the doctrine evaluate strategic settlement consideration so that it can reduce risk of res  judicata challenges & also encourage use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism  for resolving dispute before escalate to litigation.