This means ‘a right under judicial consideration’.
In order to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue, provisions are made in Sn.10 C.P.C.
Such a matter is said to be ’Res Subjudice’ if the matter previously instituted is pending in another court of competent jurisdiction.
What is barred is the second suit instituted. The second court should not proceed with the trial of the suit if:
E.g.: B residing in Calcutta, has an agent A at Mysore to sell goods. A sues B in Mysore for balance due on account. During the pendency of the suit B institutes a suit against A, in Calcutta. The Calcutta court must not proceed as the matter is re-subjudice in Mysore Court. The suit must be stayed.
Exception: If a suit is pending in a Foreign Court, the suit is not barred in India and hence, a suit may be filed.
The provisions in Sn 10 are mandatory. It also applies to proceedings under Art 226 of the Constitution.
Res Judicata means ’right decided’. This means ‘the matter is adjudicated’ and hence, the competent court has already decided the matter. The rule is that the second trial should be barred to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. This rule was laid down in the Duchess of Kingstone’s case by Sir William de Gray, Judge. However, several conditions are to be fulfilled to bar the jurisdiction of the second court.
There must be final decision, the matter is heard and finally decided in any one of the following ways:
Explanation :- Sn 11 has 8 explanations : According to them
According to Sn.ll, Explanation iv: a matter may be actually or constructively in issue. Matters may be directly in issue. These are clear from the pleadings in the plaint and the written statement. However, there may be matters ‘might have been’ or ‘ought to have been’ made by the parties (the plaintiff in his averment or the defendant in his written statement).
If the parties have failed in the previous suit to bring out these, then under the rule of res judicata, the matter is deemed to have been in issue directly and substantially, and it is also deemed to have been heard and decided. The result is that in such cases, the suit is barred under res Judicata.
Eg.: A sues B to recover certain property belonging to the estate of C. The ground was that C & D were brothers; on the death of C, the property came to me survivor D and that D had adopted ‘A’. D, died and the property had come to B. A claimed as adopted son. The suit was dismissed as adoption was not proved. Later A sued B alleging that he was a ‘bandhu’ of C and hence was entitled. This is barred by constructive res Judicata. B ought to have pleaded that he was a ‘bandhu’ in the earlier suit. Suit dismissed
Though res judicata is sometimes treated as part of the doctrine of estoppel, still they are essentially different
|Res judicata under Sn.ll, is based on public policy. It is essentially procedural. Based on “Nemo dabet bix vexari” (No one should be vexed twice) to put an end to litigous tendency. What is barred in the second suit on the same cause of action between the same parties and subject to other conditions of Sn.ll.|| Estoppel as per Sn.115 of the Evidence Act is by conduct of parties, or agreement or estoppel in pais.
This is essentially a rule of evidence. It is based on the rule that if a person induces another to alter his situation, he cannot take advantage of such altered situation. He will not be allowed to contradict himself.
|Res judicata ousts the juris diction of the court in the second suit||Deals with jurisdiction of the second court itself and bars it from exercising jurisdiction|
|Deals with jurisdiction of the second court itself and bars it from exercising jurisdiction||This is by a party and hence he is prevented from going back on his earlier statement|