The word ‘Res Subjudice’ has a Latin origin. ‘Res’ means ‘thing’ or ‘matter’ and ‘Sub judice’ means ‘under consideration of court’ or ‘under a judge’. So, Res Subjudice means matter which is under the consideration of the court. This concept was originated from Roman law as Res Subjudicatae. In the ancient Hindu law, it was known as ‘Purva Nyaya’ or former judgement. This concept is laid down under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which deals with the ‘stay of suits’.
Section 10 reads thus:
“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 the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.”
So, if we read the statutory provision of section 10 and interpret it in liberal way we find that a subsequent filed suit may be stayed if:
(i) the subsequent suit is directly and substantially in issue related to the previously filed suit; and
(ii) title, issue and parties are the same; and
(iii) the suit is filed before a competent court of same jurisdiction or having competent jurisdiction to try such suits either within the limits of India or outside India or before the Supreme Court.
Object of Res Subjudice
The object underlying section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. The object underlying section 10 is to avoid two parallel trials on the same issue by two courts and to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit. The language of section 10 suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in the Civil Court and it cannot apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute.
The object of section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. 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. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical.
The key words in section 10 are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in the previous instituted suit. The words “directly and substantially in issue” are used in contra-distinction to the words “incidentally or collaterally in issue”. 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 subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical.[i]
But subject to provisions and conditions, there is no bar (as is clear from explanation appended to section 10) on the power of an Indian Court to try a subsequently instituted suit if the previously instituted suit is pending before a foreign court.
Res judicata relates to the plaintiff’s duty to put forth all the grounds of attack in support of his claim.[ii]
About the enforcement of section 10, the Supreme Court, observed in case of Manohar Lai v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hira Lal[iii],”As soon as the conditions appended to section 10 are satisfied, a court cannot proceed with the subsequently instituted suit since the provisions contained in section 10 are mandatory in nature and no direction is left with the Court.”
Essential Conditions of Res Subjudice
For the application of this section, the following conditions must be satisfied:
- There must be two suits, one previously instituted and other subsequently instituted.
- The matter in issue in subsequent suit must be directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit.
- The parties in the previous suit and the subsequent suit are the same.
- The parties are litigating under the same title in both the suits.
- 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 continued by the Central Government or before the Supreme Court.
- The Court in which the previous suit is instituted must have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit.
- Such parties must be litigating under the same title in both the suits.
The test applicability of Section 10 is to whether the decision in a previously instituted suit would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit.
Even where the provision of Section 10 of the Code do not strictly apply, a civil court has inherent power under Section 151 to stay a suit to achieve the ends of justice. Similarly, a court has inherent power to consolidate different suits between the same parties in which the matter in issue is substantially the same.
The main purpose of Section 10 is to avoid two conflicting decisions, a court in an appropriate case can pass an order of consolidation of both the suits.
In Rajesh Singh v. Manoj Kumar[iv] AIR 2010 MP 16, the respondent plaintiff earlier had filed a civil suit for declaration in respect of the property in dispute. Present petitioner filed his written statement in the said suit denying the title of the plaintiff. Plaintiff, therefore, filed another suit under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act against the present petitioner for ejectment. In said suit also present petitioner denied the title of the plaintiff. In view of the common issue, whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property, the defendant filed an application under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the subsequent suit for ejectment. Said application stood dismissed by the order which is impugned in this petition. Therefore, it is held that section 10 of the CPC will not be attracted as the question of title in suit for ejectment is not directly and substantially in issue but is incidental and collateral.
In Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna[v] it was held by the Supreme Court that, the proceedings in the trial of a suit have to be conducted in accordance with provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 no doubt lays down 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 having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed. However, mere filing of any application under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not in any manner put an embargo on the power of the court to examine the merits of the matter. The object of the section is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. The section enacts merely a rule of procedure and a decree passed in contravention thereof is not a nullity. It is not a litigant to dictate to the court as to how the proceedings should be conducted, it is for the court to decide what will be the best course to be adopted for expeditious disposal of the case. In a given case the stay of proceedings of later suit may be necessary in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and harassment of parties. However, where subsequently instituted suit can be decided on purely legal points without taking evidence, 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.
Conclusion
We can conclude from the above discussion that The basic object of this provision is to prevent the courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same issue, cause-of-action, same subject-matter and the relief prayed for. The policy is to bring down the unnecessary workloads of the courts and also to prevent the multiplicity of frivolous litigations. It also aims to avert in convenience to the parties and gives effect to the Rule of Res judicata.
[i]National Institute of M.H. & N.S. v. C. Parameshwara AIR 2005 SC 242.
[ii]Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta AIR 2011 SC 9.
[iii]Manohar Lai v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hira LalAIR 1962 SC 527.
[iv] Rajesh Singh v. Manoj Kumar AIR 2010 MP 16.
[v] Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna, (2004) 4 SCALE 688.
Very great post sir as being a law student, I think I have a lot to learn from you and your blogs.