Res judicata
Latin: A matter already adjudged
Also called: Rule of res judicata, Constructive res judicata, Res judicata pro veritate accipitur
A 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).
Explained
Res judicata is codified in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 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 parties under whom they claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try the subsequent suit, and has been heard and finally decided by that Court. It rests on interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium and nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa.
The conditions are: the matter was directly and substantially in issue in both proceedings; the parties are the same or claim under the same parties; they litigated under the same title; the former Court was competent to try the later suit; and the matter was heard and finally decided. The Explanations refine these. A former suit means one decided earlier, whatever the date of institution (Explanation I). Under Explanation IV, constructive res judicata, any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in the former suit is deemed to have been in issue. Under Explanation V relief claimed but not expressly granted is deemed refused. Explanation VI binds persons interested in a public right litigated bona fide by others. Explanation VII applies the section to execution proceedings, and Explanation VIII lets a decision of a Court of limited jurisdiction operate as res judicata.
The principle reaches beyond Section 11. In Daryao v. State of U.P. (1961) the Supreme Court held that a High Court's dismissal of an Article 226 petition on the merits after contest bars a fresh petition under Article 32 on the same facts, because res judicata rests on public policy. In International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (2001) the Court accepted that res judicata and constructive res judicata apply to execution proceedings.
Res judicata must be distinguished from res sub judice under Section 10, which stays a later suit while an earlier suit on the same matter is pending, and from estoppel, which arises from a party's representation. Examiners test the conditions, Explanation IV and VIII, and the maxims behind the rule.
What the law says
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.]
Codifies res judicata with its Explanations
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 [India] have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of [India] established or continued by [the Central Government ***.] and having like jurisdiction, or before [the Supreme Court].
Explanation.—The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in [India] from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.
Res sub judice, the contrasting rule
Example
For example, if A's suit for possession against B is dismissed on the finding that B owns the land, A cannot file a fresh suit against B claiming the same land on the same title.
For the exam
- Codified in Section 11 CPC; rests on interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium and nemo debet bis vexari.
- Constructive res judicata: Explanation IV to Section 11.
- Applies to execution proceedings (Explanation VII).
- Applies to writ petitions decided on merits (Daryao v. State of U.P., 1961).
- Res sub judice (Section 10) bars trial of a pending matter; res judicata bars a decided one.
128 questions in the Law Maker question bank use this maxim. Practise Civil Procedure Code questions
Judgments
- Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1961)Where a High Court dismisses an Article 226 petition on the merits after contest, res judicata bars a fresh Article 32 petition on the same facts for the same relief, unless the decision is set aside in appeal.
- International Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Standard Wool (U.K.) Ltd. (2001)An English ex parte decree passed without any consideration of evidence or of the points in controversy is not a judgment on the merits under Section 13(b) CPC and cannot be executed in India under Section 44A.
Related terms
- 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.
- Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causaNo 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- JudgmentUnder Section 2(9) of the CPC, the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order.
Further reading
Checked 6 November 2026. Statutory text is quoted from the Bare Acts library, taken from India Code. See the full glossary.