Applicability of Res Judicata in Interim Applications

 APPLICABILITY OF RES JUDICATA IN INTERIM APPLICATIONS

It is well settled that Section 11 of the CPC is not the foundation of the principle of res judicata, but merely a statutory recognition thereof and hence, the provision is not to be considered exhaustive of the general principle of law. According to the Explanation VII of the Section 11, CPC, this provision also applies not only to suits but also to the issues in the same suit. Along these lines, this teaching of Res Judicata is a basic idea dependent on open policy and private interest. It is imagined in the bigger public interest, which requires each & every litigation to conclude. It, along these lines, applies to civil suits, execution proceedings, arbitration proceedings, taxation matters, writ petitions, authoritative orders, interim orders, criminal proceedings, and so on Standard litigation being a party or asserting under a party of a previous suit can't maintain a strategic distance from the pertinence of section 11 of CPC as it is required besides on the ground of fraud or plot all things considered.

Doctrine of res judicata is applicable between two stages of litigation. In case of Erach Boman Khavar v. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat and another held that, to attract doctrine of res judicata, it must be manifest that, there has been a conscious adjudication of an issue. A plea of res judicata cannot be taken aid of unless; there is an expression of an opinion on merits. It is well settled in law that, principle of res judicata is applicable between two stages of same litigation but question or issue involved must have been decided at earlier stage of same litigation. One of the things happened between two stages of a civil suit is interim applications. There are many things which happen between two stages of a suit such as finding of facts. But, the doctrine of res judicata doesn’t apply in case of findings as these findings don’t give rise to any conclusion to the court. They may be helpful to give weight to the arguments of a party, but doesn’t lead to any conclusion. If any findings come before the court favoring one of the parties, then it is the duty of the other party to produce findings in their favor as the onus of proof shifts to them. After, considering all the findings, then the Court can come to a conclusion.

Whereas in Interim Applications which are filed to get an interim relief before the decree is passed, the order is given before delivering the decree to the original suit. The party seeking interim relief should make out a good prima facie case for grant of ex-parte ad interim relief. If an interim order was passed on their favor, it is nothing but the decision of the court on that particular aspect and equals to an decree of the suit, as it will be considered as the final decision of the Court on that particular aspect, even though it may or may be parallel with the decree of the suit, which is delivered in the later stage. If the interim order (rejected the interim relief sought) is considered as decided/final, then the subsequent interim application to grant the same relief is not maintainable and the doctrine of Res Judicata comes into picture. They may file an appeal against the interim order, but cannot ask for the same relief in the subsequent proceedings. So, we can say that the doctrine of Res Judicata is applicable in case of Interim Applications.

Applicability of Res Judicata in Interim Applications by Velanati Jyothirmai @ Lex Cliq