Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter II: Of the Relevancy of Facts · Judgments of courts of justice when relevant
Section 40: Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 40
-
Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and Another
Will a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stand absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by…
-
P. Manikandan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-investigation and retrial of the same offence on the same set of facts, after acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt; Whether, in the attending…
-
M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation
The present appeals challenge the Order on Charge dated 24.12.2021 and Order framing Charges dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Central Bureau of Investigation registered…
-
Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for quashing of the FIR registered u/ss. 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against the vendee for the criminal acts, misuse of power of attorney-PoA,…
- T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala
- Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu and Others v. State of Karnataka
- Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja
- Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. v. Hsbc Pi Holdings (Mauritius) Limited
- V. Kalyanaswamy (D) by Lrs. & Anr. v. L. Bakthavatsalam (D) by Lrs. & Ors.
- Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju v. Securities and Exchange Board of India
- Air Customs Officer Igi New Delhi v. Pramod Kumar Dhamija
- Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vanaras v. Ved Prakash and Ors.
- Radheyshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal and Anr.
- Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra
- Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad
- Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam & Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.) & Anr.
- Rajan Rai v. State of Bihar
- Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju v. Nimmaka Jaya Raju and Ors.
- K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police and Anr.
- Tirumala Triupati Devasthanams v. K.M. Krishnalah