Scribd
Upload
496 views2 pages

Doctrine of Res Sub

Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the doctrine of res sub judice, which means "matter under judgment" and refers to a rule that stays civil suits when the matter in dispute is already pending before a competent court. The key aspects of Section 10 are: 1) It stays subsequent litigation when the matter is directly and substantially the same as a previously filed suit pending between the same parties under the same title. 2) The matter in issue refers to the disputed material questions, not the entire subject matter. 3) The previously instituted suit must be pending in the same court or any court in India or the Supreme Court.

Uploaded by

Adan Hooda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
496 views2 pages

Doctrine of Res Sub

Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the doctrine of res sub judice, which means "matter under judgment" and refers to a rule that stays civil suits when the matter in dispute is already pending before a competent court. The key aspects of Section 10 are: 1) It stays subsequent litigation when the matter is directly and substantially the same as a previously filed suit pending between the same parties under the same title. 2) The matter in issue refers to the disputed material questions, not the entire subject matter. 3) The previously instituted suit must be pending in the same court or any court in India or the Supreme Court.

Uploaded by

Adan Hooda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Doctrine of Res Sub-Judice

Section 10 of CPC deals with Doctrine of Res Sub-Judice. ‘Res’ means matter or litigation and
Sub-Judice means pending (under judgment). Conjoining the two, it implies that the rule of Res
Sub-Judice relates to a matter which is pending judicial enquiry. In other words, this rule applies
where a matter is already pending before a competent court for the purpose of adjudication
Section 10 of CPC deals with the stay of civil suits.

Stay of suit –

        According to Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 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. The ingredients of Section 10 are as follows:-

1. Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit: It is such court where subsequent litigation
has been instituted and not the court which has taken the adjudication for previous litigation.
Technically speaking, section 10 applies to those litigations which come within the ambit of
section 9 read with section 26(2) of the Code. The term ‘trial’ in this sense implies to all the
proceedings of a civil suit. So, the subsequent litigation needs to be stayed notwithstanding the
stage at which it is.

It were intended to bar the separate trial of any suit in which the matter in issue was also directly
and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. But these
words do not apply to the simultaneous hearing of a late and earlier suit after the consolidation of
the two. Suit with the meaning of section 10 includes a pending appeal and even if second appeal
is lying undecided it is a previously instituted suit for the purposes of the section.

2. Matter directly and substantially in issue: It means the rights litigated between the parties
i.e. the facts on which the right is claimed and the law applicable to the determination of that
issue. The words “matter in issue” used in Section 10 do not mean that entire subject-matter of
the subsequent suit and the previous suit must be the same. These words mean all disputed
material questions in the subsequent suit which are directly and substantially in question in the
previous suit.

‘Matter in issue’ with respect to the Evidence Act, 1872 is of two types:-

 Matter directly and substantially in issue:-‘directly’ means immediately, without


intervention. ‘Substantially’ implies essentially or materially.
 Matter collaterally and incidentally in issue
3. Same Parties: The previously instituted suit must have been a suit between the same parties
or between the parties under whom they or any of them is claiming. Party is a person whose
name appears on the record at the time of the decision.

4. Same title: It means same capacity. Title refers to the capacity or interest of a party that is to
say whether he sues or is sued for himself in his own interest or for himself as representing the
interest of another.

5. Previously instituted suit must be pending: The previously instituted suit between the
parties must be a pending one: (a) in the same Court in which the subsequent suit is brought, or
(b) in any Court in India, or (c) in any Court beyond the limits of India established or constituted
by the Central Government, or (d) before the Supreme Court.

Illstrations

 ‘A’ an agent of ‘S’ at Jaipur agreed to sell S’s goods in Bangalore. ‘A’ the agent files suit
for balance of accounts in Bangalore. ‘S’ sues the agent ‘A’ for accounts and his
negligence in Jaipur; while case is pending in Bangalore. In this case, Jaipur Court is
precluded from conducting trial and can petition Bangalore Court to direct stay of
proceedings against Jaipur Court.
 ‘A’ and ‘B’ entered into contract for the sale of machine. ‘A’ first filed a suit against ‘B’
at court Bombay, demanding recovery of the entire amount paid. Subsequently, ‘B’ filed
a suit against ‘A’ at court Delhi demanding Rs.18, 000 as outstanding balance. In A’s
suit, ‘B’ took the defence that since both the suits are on similar issues, A’s suit should be
stayed. However, court Delhi held that since A’s suit is the first suit and the subsequent
suit had issues similar to the first suit, it is the subsequent suit that is liable to be stayed.

You might also like