Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. ..."

In Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and another[3], it was held that the general principle underlying the doctrine of res judicata is ultimately based on considerations of public policy. One important consideration of public policy is that the decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction should be final, unless they are modified or reversed by appellate authorities; and the other principle is that no one should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice over, because such a process would be contrary to considerations of fair play and justice. The principles as discussed above on res judicata have been consistently followed by this Court. And the recent judgments in that regard are in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and others[4] and in Surjit Singh and others v. Gurwant Kaur and others[5]. Thus, once the judicial authority takes a decision not to refer the parties to arbitration, and the said decision having become final, thereafter Section 11(6) route before the Chief Justice is not available to either party.