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

Summary

If a court has already issued a judgment, order, or decree that legally stops any court from hearing a new case or conducting a trial, that earlier decision is a relevant fact. This matters when the question is whether the court should allow the new case or trial to go forward.

Official Text

The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Courts 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

• IEA §43 — Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40 to 42, when relevant
• IEA §44 — Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved

Related Judgments

• K.G. PREMSHANKER vs INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR — Supreme Court of India (2002)
• VISHNU DUTT SHARMA vs DAYA SAPRA — Supreme Court of India (2009)
• Ashok Hari Khedkar vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors — Bombay High Court (Mumbai Principal Seat) (2016)
• S. P. E. MADRAS vs K. V. SUNDARAVELU — Supreme Court of India (1978)
• P. MANIKANDAN vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS — Supreme Court of India (2024)
• RAJAN RAI vs STATE OF BIHAR — Supreme Court of India (2005)

Old <-> New Code Mapping

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