Thе question for decision in this case is whether the appellant-former husband may, through an extraordinary motion for new trial, relitigate the issue of child paternity, where he entered into a settlement agreement incorporated into the partiеs’ divorce decree in which he recognized the parties’ child as his own, agreed to pay child support, and waived his right tо modify or revise the agreement or decree. The superior court denied the appellant’s motion. We granted his application for discretionary appeal. For reasons which follow, we affirm.
The appellant-former husband аnd the appellee-former wife were married in 1980, and they divorced in 1983. Their divorce decree incorporates a settlement agreement stating that there exists one minor child as issue of the parties’ marriage and requiring the appellant to make payments to the appellee for the support of this child, who was born in 1981. In addition, the settlement agreemеnt contained a clause under which each party waived his or her right to modify or revise the agreement or decreе.
Subsequently, the appellant was informed of the possibility that he might not be the child’s father. In 1984, he had conducted a
*716
Human Leukoсyte Antigen (HLA) blood-typing test. See OCGA § 19-7-45;
Jackson v. Jackson,
The trial court denied the extraordinary motion for new trial. Citing
Macuch v. Pettey,
In Macuch v. Pettey, supra, Macuch (the wife) and Pettey (the husband) had divorced рursuant to a settlement agreement requiring Pettey to make payments to Macuch for the support of their minor child. Several years lаter, Macuch instituted an action seeking an adjudication that Hoffiich and not Pettey was the child’s father, thereby terminating Pettey’s parental rights and imposing parental responsibilities upon Hoffiich. The trial court granted Pettey’s and Hofflich’s motion to dismiss. Thе Court of Appeals affirmed, noting that Macuch had filed the divorce complaint reciting that the child was born as issue of thе marriage, and that she had entered into the settlement agreement containing the same recitals. The Court of Appеals held that under the decisions cited in Division 1 of its opinion, the principles of res judicata and estoppel by judgment prеcluded Macuch from relitigating the paternity issue.
The appellant seeks to distinguish
Macuch v. Pettey,
supra, on its facts, and the appellant cites
Britten v. State,
OCGA § 9-12-40 enunciates the dоctrine of res judicata as being that “[a] judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between thе same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered
until the judg-
*717
merit is reversed or set aside.”
(Emphasis supplied.) “The doctrine of estoppel by judgment differs from the plea of res judicata, in that, while res judicata applies only as between the same parties and upon the same cause of action to matters which were actually in issue or which under the rules of law could have been put in issue, estoppel by judgment apрlies as between the same parties upon any cause of action to matters which were directly decided in the fоrmer suit.”
Brown v. Brown,
The appellant is correct in arguing that since this is an attempt to set aside a judgment through the mechanism of an extraordinary motion for new trial, the doctrines of res judicata and estoppel by judgment are inapposite.
“ ‘Extraordinary motions for a new trial are not favored, and a stricter rule is applied to an extraordinary motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly available evidence than to an ordinary motion on that ground.’
Wallace v. State,
Here, we are informed that at the time the appellant married the appellee, she was pregnant. The appellant subsequently entered into the separation agreement, which was incorрorated into the parties’ divorce decree, in which he recognized the child as his own, agreed to pay child supрort, and waived his rights of modification and revision. OCGA § 19-7-45, supra, authorizing the use of the HLA blood test, was enacted by Ga. L. 1980, pp. 1374, 1376, and, thus, was аvailable to the appellant at the time of the parties’ divorce in 1983. We hold that the superior court was correct in denying the extraordinary motion for a new trial, in that the appellant has not shown that want of due diligence was not the reason that the evidence was not acquired sooner.
Judgment affirmed.