Question

Which of the following is res judicata applicable to?

• A. Civil suits
• B. Writ petitions
• C. None of the above
• D. Both (A) and (B).
• A. The decision is on merits
• B. Order is a speaking order.
• C. Both (A) and (B).
• D. Neither (A) nor (B)
• A. No one should be vexed twice for the same cause more than once.
• B. It is in the interest of public that finality should be attached to the decisions of courts
• C. There should be an end to litigation
• D. All of these.
• A. If a writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is rejected on merits by a speaking order, another petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable being barred by res judicata.
• B. The doctrine of res judicata is founded on the principle that it is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should be attached to the binding decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction.
• C. Technical rule of res judicata only prevents multiple filing of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India between same parties over the same matter and is not applicable to petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
• D. Both (A) and (B).
• A. Res judicata is applicable.
• B. Res judicata is not applicable.
• C. Since the matter relates to livelihood and life of the person, technical rule of res judicata should not be applied.
• D. Both (B) and (C).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The correct Answer is (D):Both (A) and (B).

Answer 2

The passage draws a two-step picture of where res judicata applies: its original, statutory home, and the extension the Supreme Court has read into it. Checking each option against that picture:

1. Option A (Civil suits): This is correct as far as it goes. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 expressly enacts res judicata for civil suits, so the doctrine plainly applies there, though the option leaves out its further reach.
2. Option B (Writ petitions): This is also correct on its own. Even though Section 11 does not by its terms cover writs, the passage explains that the Supreme Court has applied the same underlying policy of finality to writ petitions decided on their merits, including petitions filed under Article 32.
3. Option C (None of the above): This cannot be right, because the passage affirmatively states that the doctrine reaches both civil suits and, subject to conditions, writ petitions.
4. Option D (Both A and B): This captures the full picture the passage gives, the statutory application to civil suits under Section 11, plus the judge-made extension of the same principle to writ petitions decided on their merits.

Since the doctrine operates in both settings described in the passage, picking only one of civil suits or writ petitions would understate its reach.

So the correct answer is (D): Both (A) and (B).

Answer 3

The correct Answer is (C):Both (A) and (B).

Answer 4

The passage sets a two-part condition for res judicata to attach to a writ petition, so each option should be checked against both parts rather than just one.

1. Option A (the decision is on merits): This is necessary but the passage makes clear it is not, by itself, the whole test. A dismissal that never engages with the merits of the case does not create a bar, so merely showing that the case was decided is not enough unless it was a decision on the substance of the claim.
2. Option B (order is a speaking order): This too is necessary on its own but not sufficient. The passage specifically notes that a dismissal without a speaking order, one that does not set out reasons, cannot be treated as creating a bar of res judicata, even if the petition was in some sense decided.
3. Option C (both A and B): This matches the passage's own wording most closely. It states that a petition dismissed on the merits binds the parties, and separately that a dismissal without a speaking order does not create a bar, which together only make sense if a merits based decision through a speaking order is what is required.
4. Option D (neither A nor B): This cannot be right, since the passage plainly ties the operation of res judicata on writs to these very two features of the earlier decision.

Both features have to be present together, a decision on the merits and a speaking order recording those reasons, before an earlier writ dismissal can block a later petition.

So the correct answer is (C): Both (A) and (B).

Answer 5

The correct Answer is (D):All of these.

Answer 6

The passage gives more than one reason for the doctrine of res judicata, and the question asks which of them the doctrine actually rests on. Each option lines up with a specific sentence in the passage:

1. Option A (no one should be vexed twice for the same cause): The passage says res judicata protects individuals from being vexed twice over with the same litigation, so this is one of the stated foundations, but only one of them.
2. Option B (finality is in the public interest): The passage separately says it is in the interest of the public at large that finality attaches to the binding decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction, which is a distinct reason from the individual-vexation point above.
3. Option C (there should be an end to litigation): The passage adds that the object of the doctrine is to ensure that ultimately there is an end to litigation, again a related but separately stated purpose.
4. Option D (all of these): Since the passage lists all three reasons side by side as the foundation of the doctrine, none of A, B or C on its own captures the full basis the passage gives.

Res judicata is not built on a single justification; the passage treats protecting parties from repeat litigation, serving the public interest in finality, and bringing litigation to a close as three connected strands of the same doctrine.

So the correct answer is (D): All of these.

Answer 7

The correct Answer is (D):Both (A) and (B).

Answer 8

This question mixes an application of the rule, option A, with a statement of its rationale, option B, and tests whether both hold up against the passage, while option C tries to reverse the actual extension the Supreme Court made.

1. Option A: This is a direct restatement of the passage's own conclusion, that a writ petition rejected on the merits through a speaking order binds the parties, so a fresh petition under Article 32 on the same facts is barred by res judicata. This is correct.
2. Option B: This is also a direct restatement of the passage, which grounds the doctrine in the public interest that finality should attach to binding decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction. This is correct as well.
3. Option C: This gets the extension backwards. The passage explains that the Supreme Court has applied the technical rule of res judicata beyond ordinary civil suits and Article 226 petitions to reach petitions under Article 32 too, precisely because the underlying policy is not treated as irrelevant even in fundamental rights cases. So it is not true that the rule stops at Article 226 and never touches Article 32.
4. Option D (both A and B): Since both the application described in A and the rationale described in B are accurate restatements of the passage, and only C is wrong, the correct choice has to combine A and B.

A states how the rule plays out on facts, B states why the rule exists, and both survive scrutiny, while C misdescribes the doctrine's actual reach.

So the correct answer is (D): Both (A) and (B).

Answer 9

The correct Answer is (B):Res judicata is not applicable.

Answer 10

The key fact here is why the High Court dismissed Mr. X's writ petition. It was dismissed because he had an alternative remedy available, which is a threshold, procedural reason for not entertaining the petition, not a ruling on whether his dismissal from service was actually justified. That distinction decides the whole question.

1. Option A (res judicata is applicable): This does not fit the passage's own test. The passage says a dismissal on a ground like the availability of an alternative remedy is not a decision on the merits, and only a merits based, reasoned rejection creates a bar. Since the High Court never examined the merits of Mr. X's dismissal, nothing has been finally decided that could bind him later.
2. Option B (res judicata is not applicable): This follows directly from the passage. Because the earlier dismissal turned only on the existence of an alternative remedy rather than on the rights and wrongs of the dismissal itself, there is no merits based decision for res judicata to attach to, so Mr. X remains free to pursue that alternative remedy.
3. Option C (technical rule should not apply because the matter concerns livelihood): This brings in a different consideration, fairness given the stakes involved, but it is not the reason the passage actually relies on. The passage's test turns on whether the earlier decision was on the merits and was a speaking order, not on how serious the subject matter is, so this is not the operative ground here even though it sounds sympathetic.
4. Option D (both B and C): Since C is not the passage's actual basis for the outcome, folding it into the answer overstates what the facts support, even though B alone is correct.

The High Court's dismissal for an alternative remedy never touched the merits of Mr. X's case, so there is nothing final for the employer's res judicata objection to rest on.

So the correct answer is (B): Res judicata is not applicable.