Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which talks about Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) i.e. res subjudice. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 2- judge consisting of Justice V Gopala Gowda and Justice Chandramauli Kr Prasad. 

Facts   

• The plaintiffs claim to own "Hanoo Manor" building in Mumbai, where the defendant's father was a tenant in a flat on the second floor. 
• The plaintiffs filed three separate eviction suits against the defendant: 
  • First Suit (6^th November 2004): On grounds of bona fide requirement for self-occupation and defendant acquiring alternate accommodation. 
  • Second Suit (6^th November 2004): On grounds of non-user for several years. 
  • Third Suit (22^nd February 2010): On grounds of non-user for a continuous period of at least six months immediately prior to filing. 
• The defendant applied to stay the third suit until the first two suits were resolved, arguing that all three suits involved the same parties and essentially the same issues. 
• The Small Causes Court granted the defendant's request on 6th July 2011, stating that the matter in both the second and third suits was "directly and substantially identical" (both concerning non-user). 
• The plaintiffs challenged this decision before the Bombay High Court through a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
• The High Court dismissed the petition, agreeing with the trial court that the issues in both suits were similar despite different time periods being cited. 
• Thus, the Supreme Court had to decide if Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is applicable in the present facts. 
• The plaintiffs' counsel (Mr. Shyam Divan) argued that the third suit was different as it specifically focused on non-user for six months immediately prior to that suit's filing, making it substantively different from the earlier suits.

Issue Involved

• Whether Section 10 of CPC is applicable in the facts of the present case? 

Observation 

• The Court first of all observed the provision applicable in the facts of the case is Section 10 of CPC which talks about Res Subjudice. 
• The Court observed that for the purpose of application of Section 10 of CPC it is required that the Court in which previous suit is pending should be competent to grant the relief claimed. 
• Section 10 of CPC uses negative expressions which makes it mandatory. Thus, the Court in which the subsequent suit has been filed is prohibited from proceeding with the trial of that suit if the conditions laid down in Section 10 of the Code are satisfied.  
• The basic purpose and the underlying object of Section 10 of the Code is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of same cause of action, same subject matter and the same relief. 
  • This is to pin down the plaintiff to one litigation so as to avoid the possibility of contradictory verdicts by two courts in respect of the same relief and is aimed to protect the defendant from multiplicity of proceedings. 
• The Court cited the case of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, (2005) where it was held that 
  • The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit. 
  • Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of the subject matter in both the proceedings is identical. 
• The question to be asked in order to ascertain the applicability of Section 10 of CPC is can the plaintiff get the same relief in the previously instituted suit if the earlier suit has been dismissed. If the answer to this is affirmative the subsequent suit is not fit to be stayed. 
• The Court applied the law laid down above in the facts of the case as follows: 
  • It was observed that Section 10 of CPC will be applicable only if the entire subject matter of the two suits is the same. 
  • In the present facts third suit was filed on the ground of non–user for 6 months prior to institution of suit. 
  • It was observed that though the ground for eviction in the two suits was similar, the same were based on different causes.  
  • In the present facts the plaintiff may or may not be able to establish the ground of non-user in the earlier two suits, but if they establish the ground of non-user for a period of six months prior to the institution of the third suit that may entitle them the decree for eviction.
    
• Thus, the Court held that the provisions of Section 10 of CPC are not attracted in the facts of the present case. 

Conclusion 

• This is a landmark judgment dealing with the principle of res sub judice which is embodied in Section 10 of CPC. 
• The Court in this case held the test that needs to be fulfilled in order to attract the doctrine of res sub judice.