This Blog is written By Miss. Shreeja Mukherjee Student of Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
Abstract
The
primary problem haunting the courts in India today is a large number of
pending cases. While this comes off as a problem that the courts, legal
research agencies, lawyers, and judges themselves are seeking to resolve, there
are certain provisions present in different Acts/ Codes that in a way aid in
the process. One such principle is the principle of Res Judicata. Preventing
litigants from filing suits for ones already decided by competent courts
prevents the multiplicity of cases and clogging of the judicial system.
The
following article analyses the application and relevance of the principle of Res
judicata present in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in light
of the case Lal Chand (Dead) v. Radha Krishan. Further,
it goes on to understand the meaning and application of the principle and
lastly ends with recent developments, if any, substantiated by cases. The aim
of the article is to analyze the principle and check its success in
applicability and loopholes, if any, with recommendations that can be
incorporated either in writing or in practicality to give the best results.
Brief
facts of the case
In
the current case, the Respondent was the owner of a house in a slum area, part
of the premises of which was tenanted to Lal Chand. Accusing Lal Chand of
sub-letting to house further to 4 others and also stating that he required the
house back for his personal use, the Respondent filed a suit of eviction in the
court of the Sub-judge, Delhi, who granted him possession of the entire
premises solely on the basis of the latter contention. The property being
situated in a slum area, the Respondent filed an application for the execution
of the suit under a competent authority which granted him execution with
regards to premises on the second floor only, stating that the same should
suffice the personal needs of the Respondent.
Having
obtained part of the premises but still not satisfied with the order, the
Respondent filed a fresh suit against Lal Chand, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram for
the possession of the remaining rooms on the ground floor.
Meanwhile,
aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial court, an appeal was preferred by the
three tenants in the court of the Senior sub-judge, Delhi. During the pendency
of the appeal, Lal Chand passed away. The widowed wife and son of Lal Chand
filed an application wishing to be included in the case as the legal
representatives, which Ram Krishan contested with the fact that the death of
Lal Chand facilitated the removal of his interest from the property, therefore he
ceased to be a tenant, hence his legal heirs would not have any right to sue.
This contention was upheld by the Appellate Judge.
Following
the above judgment, an appeal was filed in the High Court by the legal
representatives along with the other two tenants. The High Court upheld the
same decision citing the case of Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji Kalvanji
Pedhi
which had almost identical facts as the current case.
Analysis
When
the matter was posted to the Supreme Court for hearing, it very carefully
analyzed each part of the judgment given by the High court and broke it down
very systematically. First of all, the court analyzed that both the Court of
the Sub-judge and the High Court had completely based their decision on whether
the legal representatives of the deceased Lal Chand can be brought into the
case. What has been left completely untouched by these courts is the fact that
when the appeal was filed, it was not only Lal Chand who filed it but there
were two other tenants. Therefore, irrespective of whether Lal Chand has ceased
to become a tenant or not, the remaining two tenants still have an equal
interest in the suit which cannot be overlooked. Further, the court ponders upon
the point that when a competent quasi-judicial authority has already passed an
execution decree in favor of the Respondent, why was there a need to file a
separate suit in order to seek more benefits. The court examined the purpose of
Res Judicata and stated that it is in the larger public interest, that litigation must come to an end. The argument provided by the counsel for the
Respondent stating that the earlier one could not qualify as a suit per se was
rejected by the court by applying the purposive rule to the definition of “suit”. In conclusion, it was held that the present
case was barred by the principle of Res Judicata and the appeal was
allowed with costs.
Meaning
and developments in the principle
The
principle of Res Judicata embarked in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 is
a procedural provision, the rationale behind which is to prevent multiplicity
of legislation and also protect the individual from harassment of having to
litigate in the same cause of action more than once. It is not a statutory provision;
public policy is the reason for its inception
and the idea is to give finality to judicial decisions.
It is founded on the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
Though
this principle can be said to have evolved over a period of time, the prime
area of debate in recent times is first, whether the interpretation of
the same should be liberal or strict which leads to the second point i.e. what
should be the scope of the principle under Section 11.
In
the above-mentioned case, the judge has clearly reiterated that the principle
is not exhaustive in nature and therefore in the best interest of the public,
attaching an extended meaning to the same is necessary and therefore while
reading the principle, the purposive rule should be applied. On deciding the scope
of Res Judicata, a clear analysis has been provided in the case of Gulam
Abbas v. the State of U.P. where
it has been ascertained that Res Judicata should apply to writ petitions
as well. All in all, the principle should be given a universal application
spanning all areas of law.
While
in most of the cases, the principle of Res Judicata has been applied in
the sense of greater public interest, there are some cases that have differed,
which is the cause of the debate. In the case of Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the question before the court
was whether for social safety and for creating a hazardless environment for the
people to live in, mining in the area must be permitted or stopped.
In a situation such as this, it becomes difficult to entertain a plea of Res
Judicata as a matter of decision is very subjective.
Over
a period of time, the courts have emphasized the importance of the principle
through its numerous decisions, and continue doing so even now. The courts have
said that conclusiveness should be provided to the decisions of a competent
court, and the idea is to preserve the first decision. Such a principle will
only apply in the subject matter of the new case filed is substantially the same.
This in essence was mentioned in the most recent case of the State of Rajasthan
v. Nemi Chand Mahela.
Recommendations
A
clear mention in the principle or in the Section as to the linear extension of the law. What needs to be understood here is that the principle of Res Judicata
does not apply to appeals. Appeals are the most correct way of approaching a
higher judiciary when aggrieved with the decision of the lower one. However, it
should be clearly stated that the process of Res Judicata applies once
the remedy of appeal has been exhausted.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is
essential to understand that the principle of Res Judicata is very
intrinsic and necessary to the functioning of the Indian judiciary. While
courts have reiterated again and again the scope and meaning of the principle,
the slight amount of ambiguity that does exist pertaining to very subjective
situations where the applicability of the doctrine cannot exactly be traced,
such problems, if curbed, will form an ideal doctrine that neither wastes the
time of the judiciary nor harasses a party to fight the same case over and over
again. In the huge stack of files still left for disposal at the various courts
in India, the need is to evolve our principles and doctrines to supplement and
not supplant the process of quicker disposal of cases.
Comments
Post a Comment