Welcome to LawTutorial.in – Your Partner in Understanding Law
Join Now

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 34: Previous judgments to bar a second suit or trial

§ SECTION 34 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER II — RELEVANCY OF FACTS

Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial

The judgments run opens: the existence of a prior judgment, order or decree that, by law, bars a fresh suit or trial is a relevant fact — when the question is whether that new case may proceed. This is res judicata and double jeopardy at work.

How to read Section 34

A prior judgment, used as a bar.

What is relevant

The existence of a judgment, order or decree that, by law, prevents a Court taking a suit or holding a trial.

When

When the question is whether the Court ought to take cognizance of that suit or hold that trial.

The two shields

Res judicata (no second civil suit) and double jeopardy (no second criminal trial).

The bare Act

The section in its own words — colour-keyed by what each phrase does.

Section 34 · verbatim

The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial.

In short: once a matter is finally decided, the law will not let it be litigated over again — a civil matter by res judicata, a criminal charge by the rule against double jeopardy. This section makes the bar-creating judgment a relevant fact whenever a party says the new case cannot be heard.

→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 40 — the first of the “when are judgments relevant?” provisions.

Glossary

judgment · order · decree

The formal decisions of a Court — a decree in a suit, an order on an application, a judgment stating the result.

take cognizance

For a Court to take up and entertain a suit or a case.

res judicata

“A matter already judged” — a final civil decision bars a second suit on the same matter between the same parties.

double jeopardy

Autrefois acquit / convict — an acquittal or conviction bars a second trial for the same offence.

by law prevents

The bar must arise from law — the section does not invent it, it makes the barring judgment relevant.

existence (of the judgment)

What is relevant here is that the judgment exists — not its detailed reasoning.

The picture

A prior judgment bars a re-do — and that fact is relevant.

an earlierJUDGMENT / DECREEfinal & bindingthe law bars a re-doits existence is a RELEVANT FACTon whether the new case may proceedres judicata — no second civil suitdouble jeopardy — no second criminal trial

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

the ruleA closed case shuts the door

In one lineA prior judgment, order or decree that by law bars a Court from taking a fresh suit or trial is a relevant fact — when the very question is whether that new case can go ahead.
1Already decideda final judgment,order or decree2The law bars a re-dono second suit,no second trial3→ that judgmentis relevant on whetherthe new case can runa closed case stays closed — its judgment proves the bar
The existence of any judgment, order or decreewhat · a prior decisionthe fact that an earlier judgment, order or decree exists…
which by law prevents any Court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial,that by law bars a re-do…one that by law bars a Court from entertaining a suit or holding a trial (res judicata / double jeopardy)…
is a relevant fact→ relevant…is a relevant fact…
when the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial.on the bar question…when the very question is whether the Court should take up that suit or trial.
ExampleA sues B on a debt and loses; the decree is final. A sues B again on the same debt. In the second suit, the existence of the first decree is a relevant fact — it bars the second suit (res judicata). Likewise, an accused acquitted of a theft cannot be tried again for it — the acquittal is relevant to bar the second trial.
✗ Not thisIt is the existence of the barring judgment that is relevant here — not its reasoning or findings (that is other sections’ work). And only where the earlier decision, by law, actually bars the new proceeding — a judgment on a different matter or between different parties may not bar at all.

the two shieldsWhat a closed case bars

In one lineA closed case shuts the door twice over — res judicata stops a second civil suit, double jeopardy stops a second criminal trial.
no second SUITan earlier judgmentshuts the doorno second TRIALA final decree bars a second civil suit (res judicata); an acquittal or conviction bars a second criminal trial (double jeopardy).
civil — res judicatathe civil shielda final decree on a matter bars a fresh suit on the same matter, between the same parties.
criminal — double jeopardythe criminal shieldan acquittal or conviction bars a fresh trial for the same offence (autrefois acquit / convict).
ExampleCivil: B, sued twice for the same rent arrears, proves the first dismissal — the second suit is barred. Criminal: acquitted of a robbery, the accused proves the acquittal — he cannot be tried again for that robbery.
✗ Not thisThe bar needs its conditions met — same matter and parties for res judicata, same offence for double jeopardy. A different cause of action, or a genuinely different offence, is not barred — the earlier judgment then does not shut the door.

Connected provisions

res judicata

CPC 1908, § 11

The civil bar this section makes relevant — no second suit on a matter already decided between the same parties.

double jeopardy

Constitution, Art. 20(2)

The criminal bar — no one may be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

§ 35 · next

Judgments in rem (probate, etc.)

The next of the judgment-relevancy provisions in Chapter II.

lineage

IEA 1872, § 40

Carried forward — the first of the “relevancy of judgments” sections.