Difference Between Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice

The legal doctrines of Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice, as codified in the Indian Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), serve as critical principles ensuring judicial efficiency and consistency. While both doctrines aim to streamline litigation processes, they differ in their objectives, applications, and legal implications. This article explores these doctrines in detail, highlighting their key differences and providing illustrative examples to facilitate understanding.

Introduction to Res Judicata

The term Res Judicata is derived from Latin, meaning “a matter already judged.” It is enshrined in Section 11 of the CPC and prohibits courts from trying a suit or issue that has already been adjudicated upon by a competent court.

Key Features of Res Judicata

1. Finality of Judgments: Res Judicata ensures that once a matter has been decided, it cannot be reopened in subsequent litigation between the same parties.
2. Binding Nature: The doctrine applies not only to the judgment itself but also to all issues that were directly and substantially in question in the earlier suit.
3. Public Policy: The principle is rooted in public policy, aiming to prevent harassment through multiple litigations and to uphold judicial efficiency.

Conditions for Application

To invoke Res Judicata, the following conditions must be satisfied:

• The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must have been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit.
• The former suit must have been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.
• The parties in both suits must be the same or litigating under the same title.
• The decision in the former suit must have been final.

Illustrative Case Law with Facts

• Daryao v. State of U.P. (1961):
  • Facts: Petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, which were dismissed. Later, they filed similar writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.
  • Ruling: The Supreme Court applied the principle of Res Judicata, holding that the same matter could not be re-litigated in the Supreme Court if already adjudicated by a competent High Court.
• Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi (1960):
  • Facts: A dispute arose over the execution of a decree. The issue had been decided in earlier proceedings, but the appellant sought to raise it again.
  • Ruling: The court held that Res Judicata applied to prevent reopening of issues settled in prior execution proceedings.
• Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar (1966):
  • Facts: An appeal was dismissed for non-payment of court fees. Later, the appellant filed a new suit on the same cause of action.
  • Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of an appeal on technical grounds could lead to Res Judicata if the underlying issues were finally decided.
• Mathura Prasad v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy (1970):
  • Facts: A tenant claimed immunity under rent control laws, but the landlord contended otherwise. The issue was decided, but the tenant raised a new legal argument in subsequent proceedings.
  • Ruling: The court held that Res Judicata applied even if the new suit was based on a different legal argument about the same issue.

Introduction to Res Sub Judice

The doctrine of Res Sub Judice, embodied in Section 10 of the CPC, translates to “a matter under judicial consideration.” It prevents parallel proceedings on the same subject matter to avoid contradictory judgments and multiplicity of litigation.

Key Features of Res Sub Judice

1. Stay of Proceedings: If two suits involve the same subject matter and parties, the subsequent suit is stayed until the earlier one is resolved.
2. Judicial Economy: Res Sub Judice aims to avoid wasting judicial resources and time by ensuring one trial for a single issue.
3. Procedural Safeguard: Unlike Res Judicata, Res Sub Judice is a procedural rule rather than a substantive one.

Conditions for Application

The doctrine applies when:

• Two suits involve the same parties or their representatives.
• The matter in issue is directly and substantially the same in both suits.
• The earlier suit is pending in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Illustrative Case Law with Facts

• Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna (2004):
  • Facts: Two suits on the same matter involving the same parties were filed in different courts. The question was whether the second suit should proceed.
  • Ruling: The Supreme Court clarified that Section 10 of the CPC required a stay of proceedings in the second suit to avoid duplication.
• National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara (2005):
  • Facts: Two cases concerning employee termination were filed in different jurisdictions. The issue was whether one case should be stayed.
  • Ruling: The Supreme Court applied Res Sub Judice to ensure orderly trial and avoid conflicting judgments.
• Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation (1998):
  • Facts: Two suits related to loan repayment disputes between the same parties were filed in different courts.
  • Ruling: The court emphasized that Section 10 prohibits proceeding with the second suit if the matter is already pending.
• Aspi Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor (2013):
  • Facts: The parties filed overlapping suits in different courts regarding property disputes. The question was whether the second suit should proceed.
  • Ruling: The court highlighted the necessity of identical subject matter and parties for invoking Res Sub Judice, staying the second suit.

Differences Between Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice

Comparative Table

Examples to Illustrate the Doctrines

Example of Res Judicata

• Scenario: A files a suit against B for ownership of a property, and the court rules in favor of A. B later files a suit against A, claiming the same property.
• Application: The second suit will be barred under Res Judicata because the issue of ownership has already been decided.

Example of Res Sub Judice

• Scenario: A files a suit against B in Delhi for breach of contract. While this suit is pending, B files a similar suit against A in Mumbai.
• Application: The suit in Mumbai will be stayed under Res Sub Judice until the Delhi court decides the matter.

Policy Rationale Behind the Doctrines

For Res Judicata

• Prevents vexatious litigation.
• Ensures finality and certainty in legal disputes.
• Saves judicial resources by avoiding duplication.

For Res Sub Judice

• Avoids conflicting judgments.
• Promotes orderly adjudication of disputes.
• Reduces unnecessary legal expenses for litigants.

Conclusion

Both Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice are essential doctrines in civil litigation, designed to uphold the principles of judicial efficiency and fairness. While Res Judicata ensures that a matter already decided is not relitigated, Res Sub Judice prevents parallel proceedings on the same issue. Together, they play a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity and credibility of the judicial system. Understanding their differences and applications helps litigants and legal professionals navigate the complexities of civil procedure effectively.