ES प्राङ्गन्याय के सिद्धान्त के सन्दर्भ में पूर्ववर्ती वाद किन आधारों पर खारिज किया जा सकता है?

 Setting Aside a Former Suit under the Principle of Res Judicata

The doctrine of Res Judicata is a fundamental principle in civil law that prevents the re-litigation of a matter that has already been decided by a competent court. It is enshrined under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and aims to ensure finality in litigation, prevent judicial inconsistency, and avoid the wastage of judicial resources.

However, under certain circumstances, a former suit can be set aside despite Res Judicata. The following are the grounds under which a previous judgment may be challenged or set aside:

---

1. Fraud or Collusion

• If the previous judgment was obtained by fraud, deception, misrepresentation, or collusion between the parties, it cannot operate as Res Judicata.
• Case Law: S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) – The Supreme Court held that fraud vitiates all judicial proceedings and any decree obtained by fraud can be challenged.

---

2. Lack of Jurisdiction

• If the former suit was decided by a court that had no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties, the judgment can be set aside.
• Case Law: Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954) – The Supreme Court held that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage.

---

3. Violation of Natural Justice

• If the earlier decision was passed without giving a fair opportunity to one of the parties to present their case, it may be set aside on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem – no one should be condemned unheard).
• Example: If a party was not given proper notice of the proceedings or was wrongly prevented from presenting evidence.

---

4. Change in Law or Circumstances

• If a new law is enacted or there is a change in legal principles affecting the earlier decision, Res Judicata may not apply.
• Example: If a constitutional amendment or Supreme Court ruling changes the interpretation of law applicable to the former suit.

---

5. Subsequent Discovery of New Evidence

• If crucial new evidence, which was not available or could not be discovered with due diligence at the time of the former suit, comes to light, a party may seek to set aside the previous judgment.
• However, the new evidence must be material and relevant to the decision of the former suit.

---

6. Mistake or Misinterpretation of Law

• If the court in the earlier suit made a gross error in applying the law, and such an error goes to the root of the case, the judgment may be challenged.
• Example: If a case was decided based on an incorrect interpretation of a statute, which was later clarified by the Supreme Court.

---

7. Public Interest and Constitutional Matters

• In cases involving constitutional rights, fundamental rights, or public interest litigation (PIL), Res Judicata may not strictly apply.
• Case Law: Daryao v. State of U.P. (1962) – The Supreme Court ruled that Res Judicata applies to writ petitions but may be relaxed in cases of violation of Fundamental Rights.

---

Conclusion

While Res Judicata promotes legal certainty and prevents endless litigation, a former suit can be set aside if:

✅ It was obtained by fraud or collusion.

✅ The court lacked jurisdiction.

✅ There was a violation of natural justice.

✅ A change in law or circumstances occurred.

✅ New evidence emerges.

✅ There was a misinterpretation of law.

✅ The case involves public interest or constitutional issues.

Thus, Res Judicata is not an absolute bar but subject to equitable exceptions to ensure justice prevails.