Jurisdictional questions are not res judicata when an earlier ruling on court power is erroneous and later reconsideration is needed.

A pure question of law on jurisdiction is not concluded by res judicata in a later proceeding between the same parties, even if an earlier decision had held that the court lacked jurisdiction under the rent control statute. Section 11 CPC binds matters directly and substantially in issue that were heard and finally decided by a competent court, but it does not give finality to an erroneous jurisdictional ruling so as to prevent reconsideration in a subsequent case on the same land. The earlier jurisdictional finding could not therefore bar the later application, and the appeals were allowed with the matters remitted for decision according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an earlier decision holding that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for fixation of standard rent under the rent control statute operated as res judicata in a later proceeding between the same parties concerning the same land.

Issue (i): Whether an earlier decision holding that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for fixation of standard rent under the rent control statute operated as res judicata in a later proceeding between the same parties concerning the same land.

Analysis: The rule of res judicata in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applies to matters directly and substantially in issue that have been heard and finally decided by a competent court. A previous decision may bind the parties on issues of fact, mixed questions of law and fact, and on questions of law when the same cause of action arises. But a pure question of law relating to jurisdiction does not attain finality between the parties so as to preclude reconsideration in a later proceeding, because a procedural rule cannot override the law governing the Court's jurisdiction. Where the earlier ruling on jurisdiction is erroneous, it cannot be treated as conclusively determining the Court's power in later proceedings, particularly when it would effectively create a special rule contrary to the statute.

Conclusion: The earlier jurisdictional ruling did not operate as res judicata against the appellant, and the later application could not be rejected on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the orders below were set aside, and the matter was remitted for decision according to law, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A pure question of law relating to the jurisdiction of a court is not res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, because procedural finality cannot supplant the governing law or validate an erroneous jurisdictional decision.

---