Whether an erroneous decision on a question of law attracts doctrine of res judicata between parties to it?

The scope of application of doctrine of res judicata is in
question.
The literal meaning of “res” is “everything that may form an
object of rights and includes an object, subject-matter or status” and
“res judicata” literally means “a matter adjudged a thing judicially
acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgments”. “Res
judicata pro veritate accipitur” is the full maxim which has, over the
years, shrunk to mere “res judicata”, which means that res judicata is
accepted for truth.
The doctrine contains the rule of conclusiveness of the
judgment which is based partly on the maxim of Roman jurisprudence
“interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” (it concerns the State that there

be an end to law suits) and partly on the maxim “nemo debet bis
vexari pro uno et eadem causa” (no man should be vexed twice over
for the same cause).
Even an erroneous decision on a question of law attracts the
doctrine of res judicata between the parties to it. The correctness or
otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon the question
whether or not it operates as res judicata. (Vide: Shah Shivraj
Gopalji v. ED-, Appakadh Ayiassa Bi & Ors., AIR 1949 PC 302;
and Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee & Ors., AIR
1953 SC 65).
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10620 OF 2013
Dr. Subramanian Swamy

Versus
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation;2015(2) ALLMR408 SC

Print Page

Whether court can review a judgment if it is based on question of law which was reversed or modified by subsequent decision of superior court in any other case?

The issue can be examined from another angle. Explanation to
Order XLVII, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘CPC’) provides that if the decision on a question of
law on which the judgment of the court is based, is reversed or
modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other
case, it shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Thus,
even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the court to
undertake review, as the first and foremost requirement of entertaining
a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers
from any error apparent on the face of the order and in absence of any
such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be
disturbed. (Vide: Rajendra Kumar & Ors. v. Rambhai & Ors.,
AIR 2003 SC 2095).

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10620 OF 2013

Dr. Subramanian Swamy V State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Citation; AIR 2015 SC460

Print Page