An issue of law which arises between the same parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding is not res judicata if, by an erroneous decision given on a statutory prohibition in the former suit or proceeding. Res judicata cannot stand in the way of an erroneous interpretation of a statutory prohibition. The present is one such case. Therefore, the second order must also be set aside. The appeal is allowed. ...SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd.=VS=K.S. Chamankar Infras. Pvt. Ltd., (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (SC) 24] ....View Full Judgment

Res judicata (derived from "res iudicata", Latin for "a thing decided"), more commonly res judicata in legal usage, is a common law doctrine meant to bar relitigation of cases between the same parties in court. In other words, a rule of civil law that once a matter has been litigated and final judgment has been rendered by the trial court, the matter cannot be relitigated by the parties in the same court, or any other trial court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.
The rule of res judicata is enacted in section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (v of 1908). The rule of estoppel by res judicata, which is a rule of evidence, is that where a final decision has been pronounced by a judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of the litigation, any party or privy to such litigation as against any other party or privy is estopped in any subsequent litigation from disputing or questioning such decision on the merits. ….. [Carl-Zess-Stiftung vs. Rayner & Keeler Ltd. (1966)2 All ER 536]

Principles of resjudicata– The question of resjudicata cannot be decided by dint of objection raised in the application for addition of party without framing issues at the time of trial– The principles of resjudicata must be fulfilled which are as follows:
(1) Identity of matter in issue: The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit either actually or constructively.
(2) Identity of parties: The former suit must have been between the same parties or between parties under they or any of them claim.
(3) Same title: The parties in the subsequent suit must have litigated under the same title as in the former suit.
(4) Concurrence of jurisdiction: The Court which decided the former suit must have been competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which the issue has been subsequently raised.
(5) Finality of decision: The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must have been finally decided in the former suit.
On perusal of the plaint of the suit and the pleadings of the parties it is clearly divulged that in the instant suit parties are not same. The suit properties are not same and the reliefs claimed in the present suit are not similar, rather, squarely distinct and separate.
The question of resjudicata cannot be decided by dint of objection raised in the application for addition of party without framing issues at the time of trial. Reliance may be placed to the case of Sreemoti Puspa Rani and another Vs. A.K.M. Habibur Rahman and others, reported in XIII BLD (1993) (AD) 217. We find no merit in the appeal. ...Mohammad Nurul Haque =VS= Md. Nurul Haque, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 74] ....View Full Judgment