Code
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.
Explanation
- Sometimes, a judgment, order, or decree from a competent court may legally prohibit another court from hearing a case (for example, due to res judicata, estoppel, or lack of jurisdiction).
- In such situations, the existence of such a judgment, order, or decree is a “relevant fact”.
- This means it becomes important evidence when the court is deciding whether it is allowed to proceed with the case.
Section 34 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) addresses a key procedural safeguard:
This protects the judicial system from conflicting decisions and ensures consistency and finality.
Illustration
Example 1:
A civil court is asked to hear a suit involving a land dispute. The defendant produces a previous High Court order dismissing the same claim. The existence of that order is a relevant fact under Section 34, as it may prevent the civil court from hearing the matter again.
Example 2:
A party tries to re-litigate a matter already decided in arbitration. The arbitration award confirmed by a court may act as a bar. The judgment confirming the award becomes relevant under Section 34.
Common Questions and Answers
1. Does this apply to criminal trials?
Yes, if a prior order or judgment prevents a criminal court from taking cognizance of a case (e.g. due to acquittal in the same matter), it becomes a relevant fact under this section.
2. Is it necessary for the bar to be final?
Yes, usually the bar must be legally binding — such as a final judgment or an unchallenged order.
3. Can interim orders be used under this section?
Interim orders might be relevant, but only if they explicitly restrict the trial or cognizance of a case. Final judgments carry greater weight.
4. What is the legal principle behind this?
The doctrine of res judicata and judicial discipline — courts must avoid re-deciding matters already settled.
