Explain Doctrine of 'Res-judicata'. State the conditions for applicability of the doctrine of Res-judicata. Introduction The rule of res judicata has a very ancient history. It was known to ancient Hindu Law as ‘Purva Nyaya’ (former judgment). Under the Roman Law, it was recognised that "one suit and one decision was enough for any single dispute". The doctrine was accepted in the European continent and in the Commonwealth countries. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure embodies the doctrine of res judicata. Meaning The doctrine of Res judicata means Prohibition on Relitigation of already adjudicated or decided matter. Object or purpose 1. No person should be punished twice for same cause 2. It is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a litigation 3. A judicial decision must be accepted as correct Essential conditions for applicability of doctrine of Res judicata 1. Matter in issue The issues in both suits must be similar. The "matter in issue" may be an issue of fact, an issue of law, or one of mixed law and fact. 2. Same Parties The second condition of res judicata is that the former suit must have been a suit between the same parties. when the parties in the subsequent suit are different from the former suit, there is no res judicata. 3. Same Title The third condition of res judicata is that the parties to the subsequent suit must have litigated under the same title in the former suit. 4. Competent Court The fourth condition of res judicata is that the court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit. 5. Heard and finally decided The fifth and the final condition of res judicata is that the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by a court in the former suit. Cases Duchess of Kingstone case, Sir William de Grey made following observations: firstly, that judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction is, as a plea, a bar, or as evidence conclusive, between the same parties, upon the same matter. secondly, that the judgment of a court of exclusive jurisdiction is conclusive upon the same matter. Narayanan Chettiar v. Annamalai Chettiar It is well established that the doctrine of res judicata codified in section of cpc is not exhaustive (exhaustive means detailed and complete). Lal Chand v. Radha Krishan The principle of res judicata is conceived in the larger public interest which requires that all litigation must, sooner than later, come to an end. State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain a sub-inspector of police, was dismissed from service by the D.I.G. He challenged the order of dismissal by filing a writ petition in the High Court on the ground that he was not given opportunity of being heard. The contention was negatived and the petition was dismissed. He then filed a suit and raised an additional ground that since he was appointed by the I.G.P, the D.I.G. had no power to dismiss him. The State contended that the suit was barred by constructive res judicata. The trial court, the first appellate court and the High Court held that the suit was not barred by res judicata. Allowing the appeal filed by the State, the Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by res judicata. Conclusion The Doctrine of Res Judicata can be understood as something which restricts either party to “move the clock back” during the pendency of the proceedings. The extent of res judicata is wide and it includes a lot of things which even include Public Interest Litigations. This doctrine can be applied outside the Code of Civil Procedure and covers a lot of areas which are related to the society and people. The scope and the extent have widened with the passage of time and the Supreme Court has elongated the areas with its judgments.