BSA Section 34 — Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial

Summary

If a judgment, order, or decree exists that, under the law, stops a court from hearing a suit or holding a trial, the existence of that judgment, order, or decree is a relevant fact. This becomes relevant when the question before the court is whether it should take up the suit or hold the trial at all.

Official Text

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.

Referred to by

• BSA §37 — Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36 when relevant
• BSA §38 — Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved

Related Judgments

• RAJ KUMAR @ BHEEMA vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI — Supreme Court of India (2025)
• RAJAN RAI vs STATE OF BIHAR — Supreme Court of India (2005)
• Reserved on: 20th September, 2016; Pronounced on: 23rd September, 201 vs SH. SHASHI BHUSHAN LAL DASS — Delhi High Court (2016)
• 8146/2024; MRS. MINAL DESAI vs MR. KAWALJEET SINGH — Delhi High Court (2025)

Old <-> New Code Mapping

• IEA §40 — Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial