Res Judicata, Principles of

If a suit is not decided on merits, the same would not constitute or operate a res judicata.

In case of conflicting decisions on the vires of a legislative enactment of two High Courts, when decision of one remained unchallenged in the hierarchy as no appeal was preferred and the other was challenged before the Supreme Court, then the verdict of the High Court that went unchallenged, which was in conflict with the final decision of the Supreme Court had to be treated as outmoded and no longer executable

Such a situation warranted departure from the doctrine of res judicata.

Once a controversy with regard to a right in property or a right to office was adjudicated upon and attained finality through a judicial pronouncement of a competent Court of law, it no more remained open to challenge in any subsequent judicial proceedings between the same parties on the same subject matter

Said principle was intended not to afford a litigant more than one opportunity for resolution of a judicial dispute and thus eliminated the chances of repetitious and successive litigation against a party on the same issue

Maxim "that there should be an end to litigation" was germane to such matters.

Matter directly or indirectly subjudice before a court of competent jurisdiction could not be re-tried before other court/forum as such lis should fall within meaning of `res sub judice' or `res judicata'.

Principle of res judicata was a principle of universal applicability.

Analysis of the cases, in the present case, indicated that both matters were based on different causes of action and between different parties

Earlier suit was filed on the basis of promissory note whereas the subsequent suit was filed by a different party and subject-matter thereof was disputed as to its mutation

When subject-matter and parties were not the same, principle of res judicata was not applicable.

Remedy of appeal would be available to a party considering such decision to be incorrect.

Finality should, impart to judicial decisions and if a case is res judicata, it may not be reopened so as to- be adjudged again

Once a matter between the, parties to, a suit or proceeding is decided and the decision has become final either because no appeal lies or an appeal was taken or if taken, it was dismissed, none of the patties shall be allowed to canvass the same matter again in .a subsequent suit or proceedings between the same parties and as' a result of the application of principle of res judicata as embodied in S.11, C. P.C. all future litigation at. any length between the parties must proceed on the presumption of correctness of the previous decision.

If facts and circumstances are changed in subsequent years, then neither assessee nor Assessing Officer would be bound by assessment order or finding of Appellate Court given in earlier assessment years

With changed facts and circumstances, assessment and finding can also be changed, to which no exception can be taken.

Principles of res judicata would not apply to the income tax/wealth tax proceedings because each year was a separate assessable entity.

Ingredients enlisted:

Controversy had substantially been in issue between the same parties in the former suit dismissed under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.

Both the Courts below had dismissed the suit on the basis of doctrine of res judicata

Plea raised by the plaintiff was that principle of res judicata was not applicable as the previous suit had not been decided on merits and the pleadings of the parties were at variance in both the suits

Validity

Where the Court proceeded to decide the suit under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. it was a decision on merits and a fresh suit on the same cause of action was barred under S.11, C.P.C.

Plaintiff having himself had filed the earlier suit which was dismissed under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C., and the judgment was not challenged any further, the plaintiff was bound by such determination irrespective of the pleadings of the parties

Determination of the "issue" is found mentioned in S. 11, C.P.C. which issue had stood determined in the former suit

View taken by both the Courts below could neither be regarded illegal nor suffering from any material irregularity.

Essence of the principle of res judicata contained in S.11, C.P.C. is that a relief which is or which can be claimed and prayed for by a litigant through one recourse to law cannot be claimed or prayed for again by the same litigant before the same forum

Principle thus, saves the Court from being vexed repeatedly by a litigant for the same relief or for a relief which could have been claimed or prayed for by him in earlier action.

Plaintiff filed suit for possession of property, which was resisted by defendant on pleas of adverse possession, being barred by res judicata and OJI, R.2, C.P.C.

Defendant also claimed compensation for raising construction over the property and making improvements

Trial Court decreed the suit, which was upheld in appeal

Validity

Previous suit was not filed on the basis of same cause of action, which was dismissed for non-prosecution

As to amount spent on construction and improvements, except statement of defendant, no other evidence was led

Defendant could not prove plea of adverse possession as required under law

Findings of Courts below did not suffer from any illegality such as misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence and as regard res judicata and applicability of 0.11, R.2, C.P.C.

Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal.

Petitioner neither filed any review petition against the order of dismissal nor the same was challenged before the Supreme Court

Effect

Such order passed by the High Court had become final between the parties

Principle of res judicata was attracted in circumstances.

Res Judicata, Principles of -Applicable to proceedings in execution.