INTRODUCTION:
In the earlier blog we have already discussed res judicata, its requisites, dimensions, all the explanations of Section 11 of CPC and also applicability of res judicata you will find link at the end of this blog.
The present work concerns one of the requisites of res judicata section 11 and explanation VIII. Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code defines res judicata along with explanations. It is important to read section 11 along with Explanation VIII to understand the controversy between the two, it is also important to note the types of the Court and different jurisdictions.
LAW on res judicata Section 11 and Explanation VIII:
SECTION 11:
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 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.
TYPES OF COURTS:
- Court of concurrent jurisdiction.
- Court of exclusive jurisdiction;
- Court of limited jurisdiction;
TYPES OF JURISDICTIONS:
- Pecuniary jurisdiction.
- Territorial jurisdiction;
- Subject matter jurisdiction;
ISSUE:
Section 11 of the CPC envisages that res judicata will be operative when the court which tried the former suit or proceeding is also competent to try subsequent suit or proceeding. Therefore, if a decision rendered in former suit which is not competent to try a subsequent suit, then there is no bar under section 11 on the court to adjudicate the subsequent suit. It is pertinent to note that the Section 11 under the word former suit, a former suit is not the one filed earlier but one which is decided earlier in other words date of decision is important and not the date of filing for application of res judicata.
Further in Explanation VIII of Section 11 of CPC which is contrary to section infers that res judicata will be operative in a case where former suit or an issue has been heard and decided by the court of competent but limited jurisdiction. It is immaterial whether such court of limited jurisdiction is competent or not to try such subsequent suit.
Court of limited jurisdiction:
Different High courts were of different opinion concerning the applicability of res judicata in a case where court of limited jurisdiction is not competent to try the subsequent suit. In pursuance of section 11 it was construed that res judicata will not be applicable since the court is not competent to try such subsequent suit or issue. The court of limited jurisdiction does not include the court which unable to try subsequent suit reason being it is beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. On the contrary it was opined that court of limited jurisdiction is wide enough to include the court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction therefore res judicata will be attracted even when the former court is not competent to try the subsequent suit due to limited pecuniary jurisdiction.
SULOCHANA AMMA VS. NARAYANAN NAIR
The said controversy was resolved by the judgment of apex court in Sulochana Amma vs. Narayanan Nair (1994) 2 SCC 14.
Aim of Section 11:
In para 5 of the said judgment court emphasized that the aim of section 11 of CPC is to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings and accord finality of an issue which was directly and substantially in issue in former suit. The reason behind the said is that no one should be vexed twice and to put an end to a litigation. Rule of res judicata is based on both public policy as well as private justice and This court relied on Daryao vs. State of U.P. for the same. Court further observed that section 11 is applicable on all the proceedings civil or otherwise.
Competent to try subsequent suit:
In para 6 court observed explanation VIII of Section 11 is appended with amendment in 1976 and the word “court of limited jurisdiction” in explanation VIII is wide enough to include court whose jurisdiction is subject to pecuniary limitation.
Section 11 and explanation VIII should be read together with harmony. Therefore, res judicata will be operative in a case when former court is not competent to deice the subsequent suit due to limitation of pecuniary jurisdiction. The purpose of section 11 Explanation VIII is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings based on the same cause of action therefore technical aspect that is pecuniary or subject wise competence of former court to adjudicate should be immaterial to when doctrine res judicata is invoked.
In para 7 court observed as under:
7……objects underlying Explanation VIII, that by operation of the non-obstante clause finality is attached to a decree of civil court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction also to put an end to the vexatious litigation and to accord conclusiveness to the issue tried by a competent court, when the same issue is directly and substantially in issue in a later suit between the same parties or their privies by operation of Section 11. The parties are precluded from raising once over the same issue for trial.
CONCLUSION:
The objective of both section 11 and the explanation VIII of section 11 of CPC is same that is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and no man shall be vexed twice for the same offence moreover there must be an end to litigation. Therefore, the phrase “court of limited jurisdiction” in explanation VIII is wide enough to include court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction. It could be construed that even when a former court is not competent to try the subsequent issue due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction res judicata will be operative irrespective of general rule that is administered in section 11.
Also read: