This provision of evidence Act Section 173, I say that I support the Aguda’s statement concerning the provision of this Evidence Act. According to Aguda, this statement is res- judicata, it is res-judicata because if the court receives the evidence from the parties and gives the conclusive of it (that is ) its judgment, it binds both the parties and no party has the power to starts it anew. Their by stopping the part from going and start the matter again.
The word unless in this section of the Evidence Act imply that the judgment might delivered its judgment in other way if not that the court admitted the facts and evidence of both the parties. In this case of unless, I understand that the “unless” in sometimes means, the court may admitted in the action which they based their judgment which if not how they admitted fact and action, the judgment would delivered underwise. So I concurred with the Aguda that Judgment of the section 173 was devoid of clarity which every reasonable man knows that it estopped the party from starting a new case that is res-judicata so my opinion been that if in such case comes in the court, the court should gives the chance to hear them again instead of res-judicata and devoid of clarity at the same time been what comes across the parties at any giving situation. So for that, there is element differences in the judgment due to the action admitted and the section 173 of the evidence Act.
According to Aguda, this section of the evidence Act did not borders on any case but borders on the conclusive decisions of the court. This is because the court looks on fact, action and evidence adduced during the court litigation or proceeding which lead to devoid of clarity.
In all above under listed points I agree with Aguda that res-judicata should giving to them because it has already finally delivered, here is my submission.