INTRODUCTION
The doctrine of "Res Sub Judice" has been dealt under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It is often referred to as the legal concept of "a matter under judgment." The doctrine of res sub judice prevents the trial of a suit that is already pending in a court of competent jurisdiction. It prevents 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. The doctrine plays a pivotal role in preventing the duplication of legal processes and contradictory outcomes.
DOCTRINE OF RES SUB JUDICE
Section 10 of the CPC deals with the stay of suits which incorporates 'the principle of res subjudice'.
Res means thing/matter and sub judice means 'under judiciary's control or pending adjudication. Thus, res sub judice means a suit pending before a competent court for a determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties.
Section 10 reads as "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 having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by 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.
Thus, as per Section 10, when two or more cases are filed between the same parties on the same subject matter, the competent court has power to stay proceedings.
However the doctrine of res-subjudice means stay of suit i.e., stay of the trial and not the institution thereof. The subsequent suit, therefore, cannot be dismissed by a court but is required to be stayed.
Therefore, a subsequent suit can always be brought before the court in which an earlier suit in respect of the identical cause of action and same subject matter between the same parties is pending.
The stay must be of the latter suit and not of the earlier suit between the same parties.
Further, this Code provides rules for the civil court in respect of the doctrine of res subjudice.
Therefore civil court should not proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties and the court before which the previously instituted suit is pending is competent to grant the relief sought.
The power to stay a suit under Section 10 does not carry power to stay the proceedings of another court and application for stay of suit should be presented to the court in which the subsequent suit is pending.
The word suit includes an appeal, but it does not include an application forleave to appeal. Further, no appeal is permissible against an order of stay passed under Section 10 as it is neither a decree nor it comes within the category of appealable orders. However, an application for revision under Section 115 of CPC can lie against an order of stay under Section 10.
Object of Section 10.
The object of the rule contained in Section 10 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.
The policy of law is to confine the plaintiff to one litigation, thus obviating the possibility of two contradictory verdicts by one and the same court in respect of the samne relief as was held in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. C Parameshwara, (2005).
The aim of Section 10 is to avoid frivolous litigation and to give effect to the rule of res judicata. The principle of res sub judice is a precondition for the enforcement of this doctrine of res judicata.
In the landmark case, Manohar Lal v. Seth Hira Lal, (1962) - The provisions of Section 10 do not become inapplicable on a court holding that the previously instituted suit is a vexatious suit or has been instituted in violation of the terms of the contract between the parties.
The test for applicability of Section 10 is whether the decision in a previously instituted suit would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. If it is so, the subsequent suit must be stayed as was held in Radha Devi v. Deep Narayan, (2003)
Conditions for the Application of Principle of Res Sub Judice.
Civil Suit: For the application of Section 10, there shall be a civil suit.
Previously Instituted Suit: There must be two suits one previously instituted and the other subsequently instituted.
Subject Matter: The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit.
Same Title: Such parties must be litigating under the same title in both suits.
Parties: Both suits must be between the same parties or their representatives.
Pendency of the Suit: The previously instituted suit must be pending in the same court in which the subsequent suit is brought or in any other court in India or in any court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government or before the Supreme Court.
Jurisdiction of the Court: The Court in which the previous suit is instituted must have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit.
Mandatory in Nature: As soon as the above-mentioned conditions are satisfied, a Court cannot proceed with the subsequently instituted suit since the provisions contained in Section 10 are mandatory in nature.
Civil Suit.
The doctrine of Res Sub Judice under CPC only applies to situations involving civil lawsuits. It doesn't apply to criminal cases. Further, Section 10 applies only to suits and appeal and not to application and complaints.
In a case called Hansraj Gupta and Others V. Dehradun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co Ltd (1932), the Court decided that a suit starts when someone files a complaint (plaint) as the person who was wronged (plaintiff). The other person, who the complaint is against (the defendant), then has to reply with a written statement. This rule doesn't cover criminal cases.
In the event where there is initiation of civil proceedings along with criminal proceedings in regard to the same cause of action, the facts will not become a ground of stay of civil suit.
Previously Instituted Suit.
There must be two suits one previously instituted and the other subsequently instituted.
For example, Wife A filed a suit for separation of conjugal life and custody of minor child against husband B. Subsequently, husband B claimed custody of minor child by filling another suit against wife B. The second suit liable to stay under section 10 of CPC,1908.
Pendency of Previously Instituted Civil Suit.
Pendency of the previously instituted suit is mandatory for the bar to the trial of the subsequent suit.
Previously instituted suit means suit instituted prior in time and not the one decided earlier.
A suit remains pending upto the decree is drawn i.e., right of the parties are conclusively determined.
Matter in Issue Must be the Same.
The matter in issue is the previously instituted suit should be directly and substantially in issue in the subsequently instituted suit. This would mean that the entire subject matter of the two suits must be the same. The commonality of a few matters in issue is not sufficient.
To stay a suit under Section 10, it is not necessary that the subject-matter and cause of action should be the same, but there must be substantial identity between the matters in the dispute.
In the case of National Institute of Mental Health V. Parameshwara (2005), the Supreme court observed that the words directly and substantially in issue are used in contradiction to the words 'incidentally or collaterally in issue.
Thus, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of matter in issue in both the suits, meaning that the whole subject matter in both the suits is identical.
Mere common ground in previous suit and subsequent suit will not suffice.
In the case of Radhika Parekh v. Konal Parekh (1993), the wife seeking order for custody of son in earlier suit and the husband seeking his appointment as guardian of son in subsequent suit, it was held that husband must be said to have brought in subsequent suit, substantially the same question of fact with respect to custody of child which have to be decided in earlier suit, hence subsequent suit was stayed.
Subject matter in dispute and matter in issue in both the suits need not be identical in every particular case and it will be enough if the matter in controversy i.e., matter in issue/dispute in two suits is substantially the same.
In the case of Sneh Lata Mathur v. Brij Rai Bahadur (2003), it was observed that where controversies in twO suits are similar, but not substantially the same, subsequent suits cannot be stayed.
In the case of Challapali Sugar Ltd. v. Swadeshi Sugar Ltd (1983), it was held where the subject matter in controversy between two suits remained the same, but reliefs were based on different causes of action, the latter suit should be stayed.
The cause of action and the subject-matter of the two suits may be different yet the matter in issue in one of them may be directly and substantially in issue in the other.
The decisive factor can be the relief claimed in both the suits. Where the plaintiff claimed identical reliefs, subsequent suit must be stayed during pendency or previous instituted suit.
Between Same Parties.
It is important for the stay of suit that the parties in the subsequent suit must be the same as are in the earlier filed suit.
If there is a substantial identity of the parties, it will be enough and the fact that same parties are not parties in both the suits is not of much importance.
Thus, the provision of res sub judice will not become inapplicable by reason of addition of party against whom no separate suit is filed.
Same parties means the parties as between whom the matter substantially in issue has arisen and also has to be decided.
Parties Litigating under Same Title.
In both the suit parties must be litigating under the same title ie., under the same capacity.
For example, if the earlier suit was for declaration of title and the latter suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the latter suit can be stayed under Section 10.
Jurisdiction of the Court to Grant Relief.
For the application of Section 10, it is essential that the Court in which the previous suit is pending must have jurisdiction to grant relief as claimed in the subsequent suit.
In the case of Manohar lal v. Seth Hira lal (1962) the Court held that the provisions of Section 10 does not become inapplicable on a court holding that the previously instituted suit is a vexatious suit or has been in violation of terms of the contract between the same parties.
In Escorts Construction Equipments Ltd V. Action Construction Equipments Ltd (1999), the defendant approached the Court to stay the suit under Section 10 of CPC, on the ground that the issue is already pending before the court of Jamshedpur. The petitioner stated that the defendant has challenged the jurisdiction of Jamshedpur court in the same suit and hence, the suit can only be filed if an objection challenging the jurisdiction was withdrawn in Jamshedpur court.
The Court held that "there are certain essential conditions enshrined under Section 10 must be fulfilled and observed that there is nothing to show the effect that the defendant should not question the competency of court in a previously instituted suit.
Further, the plaintiff in their defence in that matter has not stated that the Jamshedpur court is competent. Therefore, the Court granted relief to the defendant under Section 10 of CPC"
Effect of Contravention of Principle of Res Sub Judice.
Section 10 of CPC merely enacts a rule of procedure which can be waived by the consent of parties.
However, if parties waive their right under Section 10 and ask court to proceed with the subsequent suit, they cannot challenge the validity afterwards.
Further, if a decree passed in contravention of Section 10, then it is not a nullity and therefore can't be disregarded in execution proceedings.
In the Case of Pukhraj Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna (2004), the Supreme Court observed that mere filing of an application under Section 10 does not in any manner put bar on the power of the court to examine the merit of the matter. It is not for the litigant to decide how the proceeding should be conducted rather it is always open to the court to decide the relevant issues and not to keep the suit pending which has been instituted with an oblique motive and to cause harassment to the other side.
Non-applicability of Res-sub Judice.
Suits Pending in Foreign Court: Explanation to Section 10 provides that there is no bar on the powers of the Indian court to try a subsequently instituted suit if the previously instituted suit is pending in a foreign court. Pendency of the suit in the foreign court does not put bar on the courts in India to try the suits based on the same cause of action.
Summary Suits: In the case of Indian Bank V. Maharashtra State Coop. Marketing Federation, 1998 SC, the Supreme Court held that Section 10 is applicable to regular suits and not summary suits under 0rder 37 of the Code.
Interim Orders: The rule laid down in Section 10 applies to ʻtrial' of suit and not the institution thereof. It also does not preclude a court from passing interim orders, such as, grant of injunction or stay appointment of receiver etc.
DOCTRINE OF RES SUB JUDICE AND INHERENT POWER OF THE COURT.
The order staying proceedings in the subsequent suit can be made at any stage. In the case of Shetty v. Girdhar (1982), the Supreme Court held that when there is a case for the application of Section 10, recourse to the inherent powers under Section 151 is not justified.
However, where the provisions of Section 10 do not strictly apply, the court has inherent power to stay a suit for the ends of justice.
Court also has the inherent power to consolidate different suits between the same parties in which the matter in issue is substantially the same to avoid conflicting decision as was held in the case of Indian Bank V. Maharashtra Co operative federation (1988).
You can also get more case laws of res Subjudice here...
If you want to read the bare language of the section click here