Res Sub Judice: Stay of Suit

« »

Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) deals with the concept of Res sub judice.
Res Sub judice is a Latin maxim which means under judgement.
It implies that where the same subject matter is pending in a Court of law for adjudication between the same parties, the other court is barred to entertain it.

This section states that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.
- Explanation - The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.
This Section applies only to suits and not to applications and complaints. The term suit in this section includes appeal.
The words ‘matter in issue’ means the entire matter in controversy in the suit and not merely one of the several issues.

The object of Section 10 of CPC is to prevent the courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, the same subject matter and the same relief.
It also aims to avoid frivolous litigation and thus save the judicial system from the wastage of time and money of the State and of the litigant.

For the application of Section 10 of CPC, the following conditions must be satisfied:

There must be two suits, one previously instituted and the other subsequently instituted.
The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit.
Both the suits must be between the same parties or their representatives.
Such parties must be litigating under the same title in both the suits.
The previously instituted suits must be pending in the same court in which the subsequent suit is brought or in any other court in India or beyond the limits of India having the like jurisdiction.
The Court in which the previous suit is instituted must have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit.

This Section does not bar the institution of a suit, but only bars the trial.
The subsequent suit therefore cannot be dismissed by the court but is required to be stayed. In certain cases, it is necessary for the plaintiff to file the second suit.

The provisions contained in Section 10 are mandatory and no discretion is left with the court.
The order to stay proceedings in the subsequent suit can be made at any stage.
When there is a case for the application of Section 10 of CPC, recourse to the inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC is not justified.

A decree passed in contravention of Section 10 of CPC is not a nullity and therefore cannot be disregarded in execution proceedings.
This Section lays down a rule of procedure, pure and simple, which can be waived by a party.
Mere filing of an application under Section 10 does not in any manner put an embargo on the power of the court to examine the merits of the matter.

In the case of Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Fed. Ltd. (1998), the Supreme Court held that the rule laid down in Section10 of CPC applies to trial of a suit and not the institution thereof.
In the case of Ragho Prasad Gupta v. Shri Krishna Poddar (1969), the Supreme Court held that the Doctrine of Res Sub Judice will not apply when the matter in issue in a subsequent suit is completely different from the suit that was instituted initially,