Scribd
Upload
23 views5 pages

Res Sub Judice Section 10

Res sub judice is a legal principle that prevents the trial of a suit when the matter in issue is already pending in another competent court involving the same parties. It aims to avoid multiplicity of cases and conflicting judgments, ensuring that litigants are not subjected to unnecessary harassment. The conditions for its application include the necessity for the issues to be the same, the parties to be identical, and the prior suit to be pending in a competent court.

Uploaded by

Navjot Singh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
23 views5 pages

Res Sub Judice Section 10

Res sub judice is a legal principle that prevents the trial of a suit when the matter in issue is already pending in another competent court involving the same parties. It aims to avoid multiplicity of cases and conflicting judgments, ensuring that litigants are not subjected to unnecessary harassment. The conditions for its application include the necessity for the issues to be the same, the parties to be identical, and the prior suit to be pending in a competent court.

Uploaded by

Navjot Singh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Res Sub Judice

Section 10

Res means every object of right that forms the subject matter in a particular case. In
Latin, the term Sub-judice means ‘under a judge’ or in other words, a matter ‘under
consideration’. It means a cause that is under trial or pending before a court or judge.
The doctrine of res-judicata prevents the trial of a suit which is already pending in a
court of competent jurisdiction. When the same parties file two or three cases in the
same matter, the competent court has the power to stay proceedings of another court.
The primary aim is to prohibit the courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously
entertaining two parallel litigations.

Nature, Scope and Objective

The principle of res sub-judice prevents the court from proceeding with the trial of any
suit in which the matter in issue is directly or substantially the same with the previously
instituted suit between the same parties and the court where the issue is previously
instituted is pending has the power to grant the relief sought.

This rule is applicable to the trial of the suit and not the institution. It does not restrict
the court from passing interim orders like injunction or stay. However, it applies to
revisions and appeals.

The purpose behind this rule is to prevent multiplicity of cases in courts. It is also
sought to prevent the plaintiff from getting two separate decisions from different courts
in his favour or two contradictory judgements. It also ensures to protect the litigant from
unnecessary harassment. The policy of law is to restrict the plaintiff to one legislation,
thus obviating the possibility of two conflicting verdicts by one and the same court in
respect of the same relief.
Conditions

Section 10 of the Civil Procedural Code, 1908 deals with the conditions required to apply
the principle of res sub judice. The conditions in the process of application of res sub-
judice are:

● Where the matter in issue is same


Section 10 clearly states that the matter in issue in both the suits must be directly or
substantially be the same. In other words, there must be two suits one that is previously
instituted and another that is subsequently substituted. The issues of both the suits
should be same to get the benefit of this principle, it is not sufficient if only one or two
issues are common. In the circumstances were the entire issues are not the same, the
court may exercise its power under Section 151 and stay the trial in a subsequent suit or
the trial of the suit may be consolidated. The power of courts to stay the trial under
Section 151 is discretionary in nature and can be exercised only when there is an abuse
of process of court and if it defeats the ends of justice.

According to Indian Evidence Act, 1872 “matter in issue” are of two kinds:

Matter directly and substantially in issue– Here “directly” means immediately i.e.
without any intervention. The word “substantially” implies essentially or materially.

Matter collaterally and incidentally in issue– It is just contrary to the matter directly or
substantially in issue.

● Where the parties in suits are same


The two suits should have the same parties or their representatives.

● Where the title of the suit is same


The title of both the suits for which the parties are litigating should also be same.

Where the suit must be pending


The former suit must be pending in the court while the latter suit is instituted.
The word pending is for the previously instituted suit, where the final decision
has not been arrived at.

● In a competent court
Section 10 also specifies that the former suit must be pending before a court which is
competent to carry out the trial. If the former suit is pending before an incompetent
court, no legal effects can flow from it.

The moment the above conditions are satisfied, a court cannot proceed with
the subsequently instituted suit since the provisions contained in Section 10
are mandatory and the court cannot exercise its discretion. The order of stay
can be made at any stage of the proceedings.

Difference between Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice

Res Judicata Res Sub Judice

Res judicata applies to a decided or Res Sub judice applies in a matter which is
adjudicated matter. pending.

It bars the trial of a suit or an issue which has It bars trial of a suit which is a pending
already been decided in a former suit. decision in a previously instituted suit.
Section 11 of the Civil Procedural Code, 1908 Section 10 of the Code exclusively deals with
deals with res judicata. the principle of res sub judice.

Conditions:
Conditions:

1. There must be presence of two


1. A court of competent jurisdiction
suits one which was formerly
must have given the decision in the
instituted and other which was
former instituted suit.
subsequently instituted.
2. The matter in issue in the
2. The issues in the subsequent suit
subsequent suit must be same
should be directly or substantially be
which is directly or substantially in
the same with the previous suit.
issue in the former suit.
3. The parties in both the suits should
3. The parties should be same in
be same.
both the suits.
4. The court in which the previous
4. The court which gave decision in
suit was instituted must be a court
former suit must be a court of
which has competent jurisdiction to
competent jurisdiction.
try such suit.
5. The parties in the former suit must
5. The title should also be the same
have litigated under the same title or
in both the suits under which they are
in other words in the same capacity.
litigating.

Consolidation of suits

The objective behind Section 10 is to avoid two contradictory decisions in the same
matter by different courts. To overcome this the courts can pass an order of
consolidation of both the suits. Consolidation of suits is ordered under Section 151 for
meeting the ends of justice as it saves the party from a multiplicity of cases, delays and
expenses. The parties are also relieved from producing the same evidence at two
different places.
Conclusion

Res sub judice as a doctrine has the main purpose of reducing the burden of courts
from abundance cases. In other way it also reduces the burden of parties to adduce oral
or written evidence twice in different courts. It also avoids conflicting decisions and
makes sure to minimize the waste of resources of courts. The court can exercise this
power and put a stay on the subsequent suit. The people who try to misuse their right in
order to get double benefits are looked after through this principle. Anyways the Indian
judiciary is overburdened with many cases and if parties will start instituting cases
twice then one can’t even imagine the situation of the courts in giving decision in all
such cases.

You might also like