Nemo debet bis vexari pro una eteadem causa (no one shall be twice vexed for the same cause) is one of the two maxims on which on which the doctrine of res judicata in based.
The maxims looks to the interest of the litigant who should be protected from a vexatious multiplicity of suits, for otherwise a man possessed of wealth and capacity to fight may overawe his adversary by constant dread to litigation.
Broadly speaking, the maxim also looks to the interest of society and State. Judicial decisions must be accepted as correct for otherwise if suit were allowed to be filed endlessly for the same cause of action it will be impossible for the existing court to deal with the ever-growing number of suits.
Image Source: wealthmotivation.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Unlimited or perpetual litigation disturbs the peace of the society and leads to disorder and confusion. It is a rule common to all civilized systems of jurisprudence and was well understood by Hindu lawyers as well as Mohammedan jurists and is one well known to Roman jurisprudence as well as other modern systems of law.
Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court.
The leading case on the subject is the Duchess of Kingstone, and the following is the classic passage from the judgment of Sir William DeGray—
ADVERTISEMENTS:
“From the variety of cases relative to the judgment being given in evidence in civil suits these two deductions seem to follow as generally true: first that a judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction directly speaking on the point, is, as a plea, a bar, or as evidence, conclusive between the same parties upon the same matter, directly in question in another court………..”