State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain, AIR 1977 SC 1680

Introduction

• This case deals with the concept of Res Judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
  • The res judicata bars the institution of a fresh suit on the basis of issues already heard between the same parties and finally decided on merits by the competent Court.
• The concept of constructive res-judicata is covered under Explanation IV of Section 11 of CPC which is also known as an artificial form of res judicata.
  • The constructive res judicata means if the plea could have been taken by a party in the former suit between the same parties, then the plaintiff will not be allowed to take that plea against the same party in subsequent suit with reference to the same subject matter.

Facts

• In this case the petitioner was dismissed from the service on the basis of corruption charges by Deputy Inspector General (DIG) and the order was confirmed by the Government.
• He filed a petition against the dismissal; however, the petition was dismissed.
• Later, he again filed a petition contending that he did not get a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to defend himself, this petition was also dismissed by the High Court.
• He again filed a civil suit that his dismissal was done by the DIG who had no power to dismiss him, and his dismissal falls foul of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
• The State of U.P. traversed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by res judicata as “all the matters in issue in this case had been raised or ought to have been raised in both the writ petition and special appeal”.
• The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the District Judge also upheld the decision of the Trial Court.
• However, the High Court was of the view that the suit was not barred by the principle of constructive res judicata.
• Finally, the appeal was tabled before the Supreme Court.

Issue Involved

Whether the suit is barred by the constructive res judicata under section 11 of the Civil Procedure?

Observations

• The Court observed that the principle of estoppel per res judicata is the rule of evidence. This doctrine is based on two theories:

(i) The finality and conclusiveness of judicial decisions for the final termination of disputes in the general interest of community as a matter of public policy and

(ii) the interest of the individual that he should be protected from multiplication of litigation It therefore serves not only a public but also a private purpose by obstructing the reopening of matters which have once been adjudicated upon.

• The Court further observed that Section 11 is not exhaustive regarding an earlier decision operating as res judicata between the same parties.
• It is unnecessary that the court deciding the matter formerly be competent to decide the subsequent suit or that the former proceeding and the subsequent suit have the same subject matter.

Conclusion

• The Court finally held that the decision of the High Court was wrong, and it was therefore not permissible for plaintiff to challenge his dismissal, in the subsequent suit, on grounds which he did not raise in the former suit.
• The Court held that this was clearly barred by the constructive res judicata.

Notes

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Res Judicata - 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 .
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.