The principle of constructive res judicata emerges from
Explanation IV when read with Explanation III both of which explain the concept
of “matter directly and substantially in issue”. Explanation III clarifies that
a matter is directly and substantially in issue, when it is alleged by one
party and denied or admitted (expressly or impliedly) by the other. Explanation
IV provides that where any matter which might and ought to have been made a
ground of defence or attack in the former suit, even if it was not actually set
up as a ground of attack or defence, shall be deemed and regarded as having
been constructively in issue directly and substantially in the earlier suit.
Therefore even though a particular ground of defence or attack was not actually
taken the earlier suit, it was capable of being taken in the earlier suit, it
becomes a bar in regard to the said issue being taken in the second suit in the
view of the principle of constructive res judicata. Constructive res judicata
deals with ground of attack and defence which ought to have been raised, but
nor raised, whereas Order II of the Code relates to relief which ought to have
been claimed on the same cause of action but not claimed.
In Direct Recurit Class II Engineeering
Officers’ Association V/s State of Maharashtra, a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court
reiterated the principle of Constructive Res judicata after referring to
observations in Forward Construction Co. V/s Prabhat Mandal, that- “an adjudication is conclusive and
final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter
which the party might and ought to have litigated and have had decided as
incidental to or essentially connected with subject matter of the litigation an
every matter coming into the legitimate purview of an original action but in
respect of the matter of claim and defence.”
Thereafter,
in Ramchandra
Vrs. Vithu Mahure, Honourable
Supreme Court has explained the doctrine of constructive res judicata as
applicable in Indian law. A sub-set of the doctrine of res judicata, emanating
from Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the doctrine of constructive
res judicata sets to naught any claims being raised in a subsequent proceeding
where in an earlier proceeding such claim should/ought to have been raised and
decided. A rule of prudence, thus, the doctrine seeks to bar determination and
enforcement of claims which have not been raised at an appropriate juncture in
judicial proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment