Res judicata can bar a later suit after a contested writ decision on merits finally determines the same dispute between the same parties.

A contested writ decision under Article 226, if it finally determines the same matter between the same parties on merits, can operate as res judicata in a later suit. The majority reasoned that Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not exhaustive and that the controlling principle is public policy: issues directly and substantially in controversy, once finally decided by a competent court after full contest, should not be reopened. The earlier writ judgment therefore barred the subsequent civil suit. In dissent, Subba Rao J. took the view that Section 11 governs res judicata in suits and, unless its requirements are met, the general doctrine cannot bar a fresh civil adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether a decision on merits in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bars a subsequent regular suit between the same parties on the same matter by operation of res judicata.

Analysis: The majority held that Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not exhaustive of the doctrine of res judicata. The governing principle is one of public policy: a matter directly and substantially in controversy, once finally decided after full contest by a competent court, should not be reopened between the same parties. The nature of the earlier proceeding is immaterial if the issue was heard and finally decided on merits. A contested writ decision under Article 226, when it directly determines the same matter later sought to be reagitated in a suit, can therefore operate as a bar in the later suit.

Conclusion: The writ judgment on merits operated as res judicata in the subsequent suit, and the plea could not be reopened.

Dissenting Opinion: Subba Rao, J. held that Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governs res judicata in suits and that, where its requirements are not satisfied, the general doctrine cannot be used to bar a subsequent suit. On that view, the writ decision would not prevent the civil court from deciding the issue afresh.

---