File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Deciphering The Depths Of Legal Finality By Embarking On Journey Of Juridical Certainly: A Profound Examination Through Daryao v/s State Of U.P. Verdict

"Res Judicata: Where the echoes of justice sculpt the pillars of legal certainty and forge the legacy of precedent."...... Vishal Banga

Introduction to Res- Judicata:
In Civil Procedural Code ,1908 , res- judicata is a bar against the parties to file a suit , which already have been decided , Mainly the main object of put this section of Res- Judicata in Civil Procedure Code , To end the ligation process and avoid the parties to go to the court again and again for same matter.

If we talk about this Term ,Res Judicata is a phrase which has been evolved from a Latin maxim, which stand for 'the thing has been judge It plays a very important role for the parties to the suits meaning there by that the issue before the court has already been decided by another court, between the same parties. Therefore, the court will dismiss the case before it as being useless.

Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi:

This case clearly tells about the Applicability of Res- Judicata When a matter, whether on a question of fact or law, has been decided between two parties in one suit and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to the higher court, or no appeal lies in such case, neither party will be allowed in the future suit between the same parties to decide the matter again.

In this case it's clear that Res-Judicata prevents party to go to the court for taking remedy for the that particular suit which already has been decided, but in some special cases like PIL, Writ Petitions etc. Re- Judicial doesn't apply.

For making Res Judicata binding, several factors must be met up with:
  • Identity in the thing at suit; identity of the cause at suit;
  • Identity of the parties to the action;
  • Identity in the designation of the parties involved; whether the judgment was final;
  • Whether the parties were given full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue.
We can challenge the applicability of Res- Judicata in subsequent suit if there was not a proper just and fair trial of the suit or simply, we can say if there was any default for making justice tothe parties or many other factors. can also be there.

Applicability Of Res-Judicata In Writ Petitions:

If we talk about the Applicability of Res- judicata term in the Writ- Petitions and it was decided so time long that though Section 11 of the Code does not, in terms, apply to writ petitions, And There is no good ground to preclude decisions in matters in controversy in writ proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution from operating as Res Judicata in subsequent petitions or regular suits on the same matters in controversy between the same parties and thus to give limited effect to the principle of finality of decision after full contest.

In Sharma v. Krishna Sinha:
When we talk about this particular case law the supreme court of India first time in the history the Supreme Court held that the general principle of Res Judicata applies even to writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. So, it becomes very important to note about the Applicability of Res-Judicata on the basis ofgiven Judgement of this particular case.
  • Thus, if once the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is dismissed by the Court, subsequent petition is barred.
  • Similarly, if a writ petition filed by a party under Article 226 is considered on merits as a contested matter and is dismissed, the decision thus pronounced would continue to bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed in appeal or in other appropriate proceedings.
  • Now, this is the last point, which is important, says that It would not be open to a party to ignore the said judgment and again move the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs.

Introduction To The Case:
Daryo & Ors. v State of Uttar Pradesh:
This case was one of the most important case on the applicability of Principle of Res-Judicata's see brief introduction of the case Firstly:

The present case, Daryo & Ors. v State of Uttar Pradesh Concluded that when would the dismissal of writ petition by the High Court be a bar to the Res judicata on petition in high court,The relevant laws which were used are as follows -Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India.

Secondly, relevant sections of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 related to Res Judicata which are Section 11 and Order XLVII, Rule -1. The two main cases which were also referred to in this case were M.S.M. Sharma v. Shree Krishna Sinha.

Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali, This point discusses about the section 11 of the code explaining the principle of Res Judicata does not, apply to writ petitions, and also says that there are no good grounds to preclude decisions in matters in controversy.

Secondly not good ground upon writ proceedings under article 32 or article 226 of the constitution from operating as Res Judicata in subsequent petitions or regular suits on the same matters in controversy. Thus, this assignment deals with different cases in which the doctrine of Res Judicata has been applied by the Courts of Justice and their implications on the process of justice.

Facts Of Case:
Let's see upon the facts of the case to understand the case study in a proper manner, so the facts were as following:
  • The petitioners and their ancestors had been the tenants of the land and respondents were the proprietors of the land for the past fifty years.
  • Due to communal disturbance in UP, they left their village in 1947, after returning they found unlawful possession of respondents on their land.
  • The Petitioner filed a case in trial court under UP tenancy Act,1939 and succeeded. After that respondent's appeal was also in favor of petitioner, as a result petitioner obtained possession.
  • Respondents filed second appeal in board of revenue, and dismissed petition, Court said that as per UP Zamindari abolition & land reforms (Amendment) Act 1950 Respondents were entitled for it.
  • Petitioner moved to the High court under Article 32 by writ of certiorari, HC already interpreted the Act, so it was against the petitioner contentions, as a result the petition was dismissed.
  • Petitioner Now lastly moved to the Supreme Court, Court said that the limitation period has expired for appeal under Article 136, before the Allahabad High court. Now Supreme Court Concluded that grounds of attack against board decision are same as raised before High Court, so it was urged by respondents the Petition is barred by Res- Judicata.

Legal Issues Raised & Decided:
The legal issue arisen in the case were as following:
  • petitioners moved to the Supreme Court even after judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court claiming that under 32(1) it was a Fundamental right and thus the issue of Res Judicata will not be considered in the case.
  • It was held that there was no substance in the plea that the judgment of the High Court could not be treated as Res Judicata because under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Relevancy Of Res Judicata In The Case:

Res judicata mainly depends upon two concepts, First is Claim Preclusion & Second is Issue Preclusion14 Let's Discuss firstly, claim preclusion focuses on barring a suit from being brought again on a legal cause of action that has already been finally decided between the parties. Issuepreclusion bars the re-litigation of factual issues that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier claim.

Now let's see Appeal relevance in Suit - In this case Respondents Filed appeal in Board as per their right given to them in Constitution of India. If one party is not satisfied then can also go for second appeal. Appeals are considered the appropriate manner by which to challenge a judgment rather than trying to start a new trial, and once the appeals process is exhausted or waived, res judicata will apply even to a judgment that is contrary to law. There were alternations before some years ago in Res- judicata in CPC.

Or in other words, this doctrine is based on the following three maxims, Firstly:
  1. Nemo debet lis vaxari pro una eteadem which means none should be vexed twice for the same cause
  2. Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that it is the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation.
  3. Res Judicata pro verita occipitur which means that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct,
The first ground is based on private interest whereas the other two take care of public policy and larger interest of the society.

Decision Of The Case:
After Examining the contentions and facts of the case the supreme court gave its Judgement and said that:
The Court is satisfied that a change in the form of attack against the impugned statute would make no difference to the true legal position that the writ petition in the High Court and the present writ petition are directed against the same statute and the grounds raised by the petitioner in that behalf are substantially the same.

Therefore, the decision of the High Court pronounced by it on the merits of the petitioner's writ petition under Art. 226 is a bar to the making of the present petition under Art. 32. In the result this writ petition fails and is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. And at last the Petition Dismissed by Supreme court.

Principles Laid Down In This Case: - By Supreme Court

After Judgment Supreme court gave many important guidelines with regards to the Applicability of Res-judicata on writ petitions and exhaustively dealt with question of applicability of the principle of Res Judicata in writ proceedings and laid down certain principles which may be summarized in following points.
  • Let's discuss these particular points of guidelines by Court- which is necessary to understand Supreme Court said that, if a petition under Article 226 is considered on merits as a contested matter and is dismissed, the decision would continue to bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed in appeal or other appropriate proceedings permissible under the Constitution.
  • Secondly, the supreme court said that It would not be open to a party to ignore the said judgment and move the Supreme Court under Article 32 by an original petition made on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs.
  • Thirdly, if a petition under Article 226 in a High Court is dismissed not on merits and it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32.
  • Fourthly, A dismissal may, constitute a bar to a subsequent application under Article 32 where and if the facts thus found by the High Court by themselves relevant even under Article 32.
  • Fifthly, if a writ petition is dismissed in limine and an order is pronounced in that behalf, whether or not the dismissal would constitute a bar would depend on the nature of the order. If the order is on merits, it would be a bar.
  • Sixthly, if a petition is dismissed in limine without a speaking order, such dismissal cannot be treated as creating a bar of Res Judicata.
  • Seventhly, if a petition is dismissed as withdrawn, it cannot be a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32 because in such a case, there had been no decision on merits by the court.
So, these were the guidelines came out from the case, which I have discussed with you inthe assignment. So now let me give a brief Analysis of my full topic of Res judicata with case law

So, if we talk about Daryao case, the Supreme Court has placed the doctrine of Res Judicata on a higher footing, considering and treating the binding character of judgments pronounced by competent courts as an essential part of the rule of law.

It is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should attach to the binding decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction, and it is also in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation.

If these two principles form the foundation of the general rule of Res Judicata they cannot be treated as irrelevant or inadmissible even in dealing with Fundamental Rights in petition filed under Article 3220.

Thus in this case it was rightly decided by the Supreme Court, in favour of the respondents that Res Judicata does apply even when it comes to matters of writ petitions when the subject matter that is being dealt with remains the same and therefore the decision of the Allahabad High Court was held valid and rightly so.

The general principles laid down by the Supreme Court in this case has been taken as a benchmark for deciding application of Res Judicata in subsequent cases and Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh has been termed a landmark judgment in the purview of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in relation to writ petitions under section 32 and 22621 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion & Suggestions:
So above Discussion may be concluded by the following submissions are as following:
  1. A decision under article 32 should be held as res judicata if a fresh writ petition is filed in respect of the same cause or matter which has already been judicial zed on merits in previous writ petition between the same parties under the same article.
  2. A decision on merits under article 226 should be held as res judicata if subsequently the same matter or cause is raised in a subsequent writ petition under article 226 or an article of similar amplitude between the same parties.
  3. The principle of constructive res judicata should be avoided as far as possible (particularly where questions of constitutional significance arise) in the above cases.
  4. The concept of "merits" as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Daryao's case is satisfactory. However, the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Metal Corporation's case should not be followed.
  5. A writ decision should not be held to bar a subsequent regular suit. The principle of constructive res judicata as against the regular suit has to be totally avoided.
  1. Civil Procedure C.K. Takwani, Eastern Book Company, New Delhi, Eighth Edition, 2009.
  2. Code of Civil Procedure C.K. Thakker, Eastern Book Company, New Delhi, volume I, 2002.
  3. MJ's code of Civil Procedure, Justice T.S. Doabia, 908, LexisNexis Buttersworth Wadhwa, Nagpur, volume I, 13th edition, 2008.
  4. Mulla Code of Civil Procedure, Vinay Kumar Gupta, 14th Edition, LexisNexis Butterworts, New Delhi

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers

Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage


It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media


One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...


The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...


The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...


Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly