Section 34

This rule supports the legal principle that the same dispute should not be litigated again and again once a competent court has finally decided it (related to concepts like res judicata and double jeopardy). It ensures that when someone argues 'this case is already settled' or 'this person was already tried for this,' the earlier judgment itself becomes admissible proof supporting that argument, so courts can efficiently recognize and respect prior final decisions instead of re-hearing settled matters.

This section continues the wording of Section 40 of the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872, largely unchanged. Indian courts have historically read it alongside procedural bars like Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (res judicata) and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (autrefois acquit/convict, protection against double jeopardy). Courts have treated the existence of the prior judgment as a fact that can be proved to demonstrate that a second suit or trial is legally barred, without needing to reopen the merits of the earlier decision itself.

• Myth: This section itself decides whether a case is barred by an earlier judgment.
  Fact: This section only makes the existence of that earlier judgment relevant as evidence; whether it actually legally bars the new case depends on other laws, such as res judicata rules in the Code of Civil Procedure or double jeopardy protections in criminal procedure.
• Myth: Any old judgment automatically stops a new case from being filed.
  Fact: Only a judgment that 'by law' prevents cognizance (i.e., one that satisfies the legal conditions for such a bar, like same parties and same issue) has this effect; not every past judgment achieves this automatically.