Table of Contents
Distinction between Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice
Res Sub Judice
The word ‘Res’ means ‘a thing’ and ‘Sub Judice’ means ‘under judgment’. The main principle of this doctrine is to prevent the trial of two parallel litigation in between the same parties for the same cause of action and on same subject matter.
The section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 talks about the “stay of suit” meaning that the section bars the trial of the suits.
Section 10: Stay of Suit[1]
No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in [2][India] having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of 1[India] established or continued by [3][the Central Government] [4][***] and having like jurisdiction, or before [5][the Supreme Court].
Explanation– The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in 1[India] from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.
The doctrine of Res Sub judice is based on the principle to restrict the litigation of a matter to one court and to prevent the concurrent litigation of it.
The various conditions for the application of the doctrine are as follows:
-
Institution of two suits
For the application of the doctrine of Res Sub Judice, there should be presence of two suits i.e., the former suit which is pending and a subsequent suit which is instituted in the court.
-
Subject matter must be same
The matter in issue in the subsequent suit is directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit.
-
Same parties
Both the suits should have the same parties or their representatives.
-
Previous suit must be pending
For the application of this doctrine it is essential for the previous suit to be pending in the court.
-
Courts must be competent
It is necessary for the application of the doctrine that the court in which the previous suit is pending should have the competency to decide the matter in subsequent suit. The presence of jurisdiction of the court in both the suits or issue is an essential requirement as the court of limited jurisdiction cannot bind a court to have larger jurisdiction by its decision.
Objective
The main objective of the rule is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, the same subject-matter and the same relief. The policy of this law is to confine a plaintiff to one litigation, thus obviating the policy of two contradictory verdicts by one and the same court in respect of the same relief[6]. The section intends to protect a person from multiplicity of proceedings and to avoid a conflict of decisions.
Res Judicata
The term ‘Res’ means ‘a thing’ and ‘Judicata’ means ‘already decided/adjudged’.
The doctrine of res judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of a judgment, is based on the need of giving finality to the judicial decisions. It states that when a matter, whether on a question of fact or a question of law, has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same party to canvass the matter again[7].
The doctrine of Res Judicata is discussed under section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Section 11: Res Judicata[8]
No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
Explanation I – The expression former suit shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to a suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
Explanation II – For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
Explanation III -The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
Explanation IV – Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
Explanation V – Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
Explanation VI – Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.
[9]Explanation VII – The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
Explanation VIII – An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.
Objective of the doctrine of res judicata:
- Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no man should be punished twice for the same cause)
- Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation)
- Res judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct)
Thus, the doctrine of res judicata is a collaborative result of the public policy and the concept of private justice made applicable to all the judicial proceedings whether civil or criminal.
The various conditions for the application of the doctrine are as follows:
-
Institution of two suits
For the application of the doctrine of Res Judicata, there should be presence of two suits i.e., the former suit which has already been decided and a subsequent suit which is instituted in the court.
-
Same parties
Both the suits should have the same parties or their representatives.
-
Litigating under same title
The parties of both suits should be litigating under the same title.
-
Subject matter must be same
The issue/subject matter in the subsequent suit must be related directly and substantially with the issue/subject matter in the previous suit.
-
Courts must be competent
It is necessary for the application of the doctrine that the court in which the previous suit is instituted should have the competency to decide the matter in subsequent suit.
-
Former suit must have been decided
There must be a final decision of the case in the former suit.
Distinction between Res Sub Judice and Res Judicata
S.no. | Matter of Distinction | Res Sub Judice | Res Judicata |
1. |
Meaning | It means the matter which is under judgement. | It means the matter which is already adjudged. |
2. |
Principle | The doctrine of res sub judice prevents the trial of a suit which is pending in a court of competent jurisdiction. | The doctrine of res judicata prevents the further litigation of a suit which is already been decided in a competent court. |
3. |
Suits | There should be presence of two suits i.e., a former suit which is pending and a subsequent suit which is instituted in a competent court. | There should be presence of two suits i.e., the former suit which has already been decided and a subsequent suit which is instituted in the court. |
4. | Same party | Both the parties should have the same parties litigating under the same title. | Both the parties should have the same parties litigating under the same title. |
5. | Subject matter | The subject matter or matter in issue of the subsequent suit must be directly or substantially similar with the former suit which is pending. | The subject matter or matter in issue of the subsequent suit must be similar with the former suit. |
6. | Competent court | The court in which the previous suit is pending must have the jurisdiction to litigate the subsequent suit. | The court in which the previous suit is decided must have the jurisdiction to litigate the subsequent suit. |
7. | Nature | The doctrine states that no court must proceed with the litigation of another suit instituted if there is already a previous suit pending in a competent court. | The doctrine states that there must be no further litigation of a suit which is already been decided in a previous suit. |
8. | Scope | This rule bars the trial of suit not the institution of it. It also does not preclude a court from passing interim orders such as grant of injunction or stay[10] | The rule prevents vexatious litigation and bars the multiplicity of proceedings. |
Conclusion
Hence, it can be concluded that res sub judice prevents the multiple proceedings of a similar suit whereas res judicata prevents the further litigation of a suit which is already been decided. It can be inferred from the above explanation that both the doctrines follow the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and helps in protecting the hands of justice. The scope of the doctrine varies and minimizes the burden and wastage of valuable time of judiciary.
[1] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[2] Subs. by Act 2 of 1951, sec. 3, for “the States” (w.e.f. 1-4-1951)
[3] Subs. by A.O. 1937, for “the G.G. in C.”
[4] The words “or the Crown Representative” omitted by the A.O. 1948
[5] Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “His Majesty in Council”
[6] Balkishan v. Kishan Lal, (1889) ILR 11
[7] Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi AIR 1960 SC 941 : (1960) 3 SCR 590
[8] Civil Procedure Code 1908
[9] Ins. by Act 104 of 1976, s. 6 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977)
[10] Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Coop. Marketing Federation
Author: Shivangi Kushwah,
Amity University Madhya Pradesh IV year/Law student