Literal Meaning
A thing adjudged is accepted for the truth.
Explanation
A decision which is once rendered by a competent court on a matter in issue between the parties after a full enquiry should not be permitted to be agitated over again. 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.
Illustration
‘A’ sued ‘B’ for committing the offence of theft. The court after considering all the evidences ruled in favor of ‘B’. After few days ‘A’ again sued ‘B’ for the same, the court dismissed the petition filed by ‘A’ by quoting the maxim ‘Res Judicata Accipitur Pro Veritate’.
Indian Law Position
Section 11 of the Code of Civil procedure provides for the principle of ‘Res Judicata’, it states the following –
“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”.[2]
Case Reffered
Satyendra Kumar & Ors. v. Raj Nath Dubey & Ors.
In this case the honorable Supreme Court of India considered the principle of ‘Res Judicata’ which has been provided by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1980.[3]
Moosa vs Sub Inspector of Police
In this case the Kerala High Court considered the principle of ‘Res Judicata’.[4]
Pritam Singh and Anr. Vs the State Of Punjab
In this case honorable Supreme Court of India provided the following –
“The maxim ‘res judicata pro veritate accipitur’ is no less applicable to criminal than to civil proceedings. Here, the appellant having been acquitted at the first trial on the charge of having ammunition in his possession, the prosecution was bound to accept the correctness of that verdict and was precluded from taking any steps to challenge it at the second trial.”[5]
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
[1] Indian Contract Act 1872, s. 38
[2] Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s. 11.
[3] Satyendra Kumar & Ors. v. Raj Nath Dubey & Ors., (2016) 14 SCC 49.
[4] Moosa v. Sub inspector of Police, 2006 CriLJ 1922.
[5] Pritam Singh And Anr. vs The State Of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415.
