Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Similar appeals were filed with identical issue. One of the appeals was heard and dismissed on the ground of limitation. Principles of res judicata is applicable to other appeals. [See 45 (1978) CLT 219 :

1977 CWR 751 : AIR 1977 SC 1268 : AIR 1966 SC 1332 : 50 (1980) CLT 507].

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Sonavane vs. V.H. Mahar, AIR 2010 SC 818 held as under:

"31. Res-judicata and Code of Civil Procedure :- It is well known that the doctrine of res-judicata is codified in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 11 generally comes into play in relation to civil suits. But apart from the codified law, the doctrine of res-judicata or the principle of the res-judicata has been applied since long in various other kinds of proceedings and situations by Courts in England, India and other countries. The rule of constructive res-judicata is engrafted in Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in many other situations also Principles not only of direct res-judicata but of constructive res-judicata are also applied, if by any judgment or order any matter in issue has been directly and explicitly decided, the decision operates as res-judicata and bars the trial of an identical issue in a subsequent proceedings between the same parties. The Principle of res- judicata comes into play when by judgment and order a decision of a particular issue is implicit in it, that is, it must be deemed to have been necessarily decided by implications even then the Principle of res-judicata on that issue is directly applicable. When any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in a former proceeding but was not so made, then such a matter in the eye of law, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to bring about finality in it, is deemed to have been constructively in issue and, therefore, is taken as decided [See AIR 1978 SC1283].
27. The principle of res judicata envisages that a judgment of a Court of concurrent jurisdiction directly upon a point would create a bar as regards a plea, between the same parties in some other matter in another Court, where the said plea seeks to raise afresh the very point that was determined in the earlier judgment."

33. When the material issue has been tried and determined between the same parties in a proper suit by a competent Court as to the status of one of them in relation to the other, it cannot be again tried in another suit between them as laid down in Krishna Behari Roy v. Bunwari Lal Roy reported in [1875 ILR (IC-144)] : (2005 AIR SCW 3578), which is followed by this Court in the case of Ishwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition Collector and Anr. [(2005) 7 SCC 190], wherein the doctrine of 'cause of action estoppel' and 'issue estoppel' has been discussed. It is laid down by this Court, that if there is an issue between the parties that is decided, the same would operate as a res-judicata between the same parties in the subsequent proceedings. This Court in the case of Isher Singh v. Sarwan Singh, [AIR 1965 SC948] has observed: