Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa
Latin: No one ought to be vexed twice for one and the same cause
Also called: Rule against double vexation, Double jeopardy
No person should be troubled twice for the same cause. The maxim underlies res judicata in civil law and the bar on a second prosecution for the same offence in criminal law.
Explained
The maxim states that no one ought to be twice vexed for one and the same cause. It protects the individual from repeated litigation on a matter already decided. It is usually paired with interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, it is in the interest of the State that there be an end to litigation, which states the public side of the same policy. Together they form the basis of the doctrine of res judicata.
In civil law, Section 11 of the CPC bars a court from trying 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, litigating under the same title, in a competent court, and has been heard and finally decided. Explanation IV extends the bar to matters that might and ought to have been raised, known as constructive res judicata. Order II Rule 2 serves the same policy: where a plaintiff omits or relinquishes any portion of his claim, or omits without the court's leave a relief arising from the same cause of action, he cannot later sue for it.
In criminal law, the maxim appears as the rule against double jeopardy. Article 20(2) of the Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Section 337 of the BNSS, earlier Section 300 of the CrPC, goes further: a person once tried by a competent court and convicted or acquitted cannot, while the conviction or acquittal remains in force, be tried again for the same offence or on the same facts for certain other offences. These are the pleas of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict.
Examiners test the maxim's link to Section 11 of the CPC, the companion maxim on finality, and the difference between the constitutional guarantee, which needs both prosecution and punishment, and the wider statutory bar in Section 337 of the BNSS.
What the law says
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.
Res judicata, the civil application of the maxim
(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish and portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.
(2) Relinquishment of part of claim.—Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.
(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs.—A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.
Bar on splitting claims from one cause of action
(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Clause (2) bars double prosecution and punishment
(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 244, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-section (1) of section 243.
(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.
Bar on retrial after conviction or acquittal
Earlier law: CRPC 300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.
Example
For example, P sues Q for ownership of a plot, and a competent court dismisses the suit on merits after full trial. P cannot file a fresh suit against Q claiming ownership of the same plot on the same title; Section 11 of the CPC bars it.
For the exam
- Meaning: no one should be vexed twice for the same cause.
- With interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, it underlies res judicata in Section 11 CPC.
- Order II Rule 2 CPC bars splitting a claim arising from one cause of action.
- Article 20(2): no prosecution and punishment for the same offence more than once.
- Section 337 BNSS (earlier Section 300 CrPC): autrefois acquit and autrefois convict.
6 questions in the Law Maker question bank use this maxim. Practise Legal Maxims & Jurisprudence questions
Related terms
- Res judicataA matter directly and substantially in issue that a competent court has heard and finally decided between the same parties cannot be tried again in a later suit (Section 11, CPC).
- Autrefois acquitA plea that the accused has already been tried by a competent court and acquitted of the same offence, so he cannot be tried again for it (Section 337, BNSS).
- Res sub judiceA matter already pending before a court. Under Section 10 of the CPC, a court must not proceed with the trial of a later suit when the same matter is directly and substantially in issue in an earlier pending suit.
- DecreeThe formal expression of an adjudication that conclusively determines the rights of the parties on all or any matter in controversy in a suit, as defined in Section 2(2) of the CPC.
Further reading
Checked 6 November 2026. Statutory text is quoted from the Bare Acts library, taken from India Code. See the full glossary.