Does the principle of res judicata apply in case of a decision given by the court of limited jurisdiction?

Question: Does the principle of res judicata apply in case of a decision given by the court of limited jurisdiction? [BIHAR J. 1995]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Does the principle of res judicata apply in case of a decision given by the court of limited jurisdiction?]

Answer

Explanation VIII of Section 11 of CPC, states that an issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.

In Nabin Majhi v. Tela Majhi, AIR 1978 Cal 440, Hon’ble Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held that courts of limited jurisdiction are the courts other than ordinary courts like revenue courts, land acquisition courts, etc and the decision of that courts will operate as Res-Judicata in the subsequent suits. But a court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be said to be a court of limited jurisdiction.

If the former court is unable to try the suit due to limited pecuniary jurisdiction then the subsequent suits filed will not operate as Res-Judicata. In P.V.N. Devoki Amma v. P.V.N. Kunhi Raman Nair, 1980 AIR (Kerala) 230, Hon’ble Bench Division Bench of Kerala High Court held that decisions rendered even by the civil courts of limited pecuniary jurisdiction operate as Res-Judicata, the fact that such court rendering decision is not competent to try subsequent suit is immaterial.

Hon’ble Bench also held that a court of limited jurisdiction is wide enough to include a court whose jurisdiction is subject to pecuniary limitation. The above Judgement did not go with the view held by the Hon’ble Bench of Calcutta High Court in 1978.

Later on, the Supreme Court of India in 1993, in Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair, 1994 AIR (SC) 152, overruled the Judgment Nabin Majhi v. Tela Maghi given by Calcutta High Court held that if this judgment is followed then there will be unending litigation which would lead to conflicting of decisions and also held that High Court of Calcutta took a very narrow view limiting the scope of Explanation VIII to decisions of the courts of special jurisdictions like insolvency, land acquisition, rent controller, land revenue tribunal, etc. It also held that the viewpoint given in the same proposition by Kerala High Court is broader and stands approved.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – I of X
2. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – II of X
3. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – III of X
4. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IV of X
5. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – V of X
6. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VI of X
7. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VII of X
8. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VIII of X
9. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IX of X
10. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – X of X