INTRODUCTION

India, bas adopted the principle of res judicata in S. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908
(hereinafter referred to as "CP.C.") Res' in Latin means thing 'Judicata' means already
decided. The essence of the doctrine of res judicata is the judicially formulated proposition that
matter which has been adjudicated in a prior action cannot be litigated a second time. The policies
which res judicata is designed to serve include the public interest in decreasing litigation,
protection of the individual from the harassment of having to litigate the same cause of action or
issue against the same adversary or his privy more than once, Essentially, the doctrine of res
judicata in general is based on the three following maxims ‘no man should be vexed twice for the
same cause’, ‘it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation’ ‘a judicial
decision must be accepted as correct’.

ESSENTIALS FOR RES JUDICATA

A. That the parties are same or litigating under same title,

B. That the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be same which
was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit,

C. That the matter in issue has been finally decided earlier.

D. That the matter in issue was decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction2.

If any one or more conditions are not proved, the principle of res judicata would not apply. Where
all the four conditions are proved, the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit thereafter as it
becomes not maintainable and liable to be dismissed

Constructive Res Judicata:

Explanation IV to Section 11 says that any matter which might or ought to have been made a
ground of defence or attack in the former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter constructively
in issue in that suit. Thus, if a matter which might and ought to have been raised by the plaintiff
in the former suit is not raised by him there he would be estopped from raising the same question
in a subsequent suit between the same parties. Similarly, where a defendant did not raise all the
objections which he might and ought to have raised in the former litigation in controverting the
plaintiffs claim, he will be barred from raising them in a subsequent suit between the same parties.
Where a matter has been actually in issue in a former suit between the same parties, litigating
under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent suit, it must have been heard and
decided for the purpose of constituting res judicata but where a matter has been constructively in
issue it could not from the very nature of things be heard and decided.

Writ Petitions and Res Judicata

In M.S.M sharma V. Dr. Shree Krishna3., for the first time Supreme Court held that the general
principle of res judicata applies even to writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India. Thus, once the petition filed under Article 32 is dismissed by the court, subsequent petition
is barred.

In the leading case of Daryao V. Sate of U.P4, the Supreme Court has placed the doctrine of res
Judicata on a higher footing, considering and treating the binding character of the judgments
pronounced by competent courts as an essential part of the rule of law.

Difference between Res judicata and Res Sub Judice

1. Res judicata relates to a matter already decided i.e. a matter on which judgment has been
pronounced, whereas res. Subjudice (laid down in Section 10) relates to matter which is pending
for judicial enquiry.

2. Res subjudice bars the trial of a suit in which the matter directly and substantially in issue is
pending in a previously instituted suit by staying the trial of the latter suit, whereas res judicata
bars altogether the trial of a suit or an issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue
has already been adjudicated upon in a previous suit
Res Judicata and stare Decisis

Res Judicata means "a case already decided", and Stare Decisis means "stand by decided cases",
or "not to disturb settled law".

Res Judicata and Stare Decisis are members of the same family. Both relate to adjudication of
matters. Both deal with final determination of contested questions and have the binding effect in
future litigation.

There is, however, distinction between the two. Whereas res judicata is based upon conclusiveness
of judgment and adjudication of prior findings, stare decisis rests on legal principles. Res Judicata
binds parties and privies, while stare decisis operates between strangers also and bind courts from
taking a contrary view on the point of law already decided. Res Judicata relates to a specific
controversy, stare decisis touches legal principle.

CONCLUSION
Today, the courts are flooded with frivolous, slow and cumbersome cases. The embodiment of a
principle like res judicata, is but one of necessity in our country. In order to bring finality to
litigation and prevent a person from being dragged to court again and again, res judicata is
essential in any society This rule operates as a bar to the trial of a subsequent suit on the same
cause of action between the same parties. Its basic purpose is - "One suit and one decision is
enough for any single dispute".

It is a principle of law by which a matter which has been litigated cannot be re-litigated between
the same parties. This is known as the rule of "res judicata" (thing decided), The aim of this rule
is to end litigation once a matter has been adjudicated. It aims to save the court time and prevent
harassment to parties".