- Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 deals with the doctrine of res judicata, which means that a matter that has already been judged cannot be tried again by a court.
- For a decree in a previous suit to operate as res judicata, the judge who made the decree must have had jurisdiction to try and decide not only that particular suit but also the subsequent suit itself in which the issue is subsequently raised.
- Mere competency to try the issue raised in the subsequent suit is not enough, and the judge must have had jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit at the time when the first suit was brought.
- The explanation to a section is not a substantive provision by itself but is entitled to explain the meaning of the words contained in the section or clarify certain ambiguities or clear them up.
- The meaning of the explanation must depend upon its terms and should be so read as to harmonize with and to clear up any ambiguity in the same section.
- PLRonline 115600
- Full Judgment with detailed headnotes for Online Subscribers (opens automatically) (Click to subscribe Trial Pack)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 11 – Explanation VIII – Scope of – Res judicata – Jurisdiction – “competent to try such subsequent suit” – Have been interpreted that it must refer to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the earlier Court to try the subsequent suit at the time when the first suit was brought – Mere competency to try the issue raised in the subsequent suit is not enough – A decree in a previous suit will not operate as res judicata, unless the Judge by whom it was made had jurisdiction to try and decide, not that particular suit, but also the subsequent suit itself in which the issue is subsequently raised – So the earlier decree of the Court of a limited pecuniary jurisdiction would not operate as res judicata when the same issue is directly and substantially in issue in a later suit filed in a Court of unlimited jurisdiction. [Para 6]
interpretation of statutes – Explanation to a section – Is not a substantive provision by itself – It is entitled to explain the meaning of the words contained in the section or clarify certain ambiguities or clear them up – It becomes a part and parcel of the enactment – Its meaning must depend upon its terms – Sometime, it would be added to include something within it or to exclude from the ambit of the main provision or condition or some words occurring in it – Therefore, the explanation normally should be so read as to harmonise with and to clear up any ambiguity in the same section. [Para 8]
