Res-judicata section 11 cpc

Res- judicata- 
  
Section 11 of CPC defines Res- judicata.

Res- thing or subject matter
Judicata- decided or adjudicated

- A matter finally decided on its merits by a court having competent jurisdiction and not subject to litigation again between the same parties.
- Means matter already adjudicated upon cannot be re-agitated again.
- One should not be vexed twice for the same cause.
- The object of the principle is to prevent endless litigation.
- The same person cannot be harassed again and again in various proceedings upon the same question.
- Once a matter is finally decided by a competent court , no party can be permitted to reopen it in a subsquent litigation.
- It applies to civil suits, execution proceeding, arbitration proceeding, taxation matters, Industrial adjudication,writ petition, administrative orders, interim orders, criminal proceeding, etc.

Object- 

- To prevent hardship to an individual who could otherwise be vexed.
- It is based on public policy that there should be an end of litigation thus it prevent endless litigation.

The doctrine of Res-judicata is based on three Maxim.:-

i) Interest republicae ut sit finis litium 
     - It is in the interest of the state that there
       should be an end to a litigation.

ii) Nemo debet lis vaxeri pro una et eadem       Causa.
      - No man should be vexed twice for the 
        same cause.

iii) Res judicata pro veritate occipitur .
       - A judicial decision must be accepted as
         correct.

Essential elements / conditions:-

- Suit must be maintainable and be of civil nature.
- There must be two suits. Prior and subsquent suits.
- Parties in both suits must be same or litigating under same title.
- Matter in issue must be decided by court of competent jurisdiction.
- Matter must be directly and substantially in issue.
- Heard and finally decided in the former suit.

Section -11 - 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 the 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 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.

¹[Explanation VII.- The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to proceedings 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 as 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.]