You are on page 1of 7

Res Sub Judice S.

10 CPC

Res Sub Judice

Sub Judice in Latin means “Under Judgement”. It denotes that a matter or
case is being considered by Court or Judge. When two or more cases are filed
between the same parties on the same subject matter, in two or more different
Courts, the competent court has power to “Stay Proceedings” of another Court. In
India, this concept is encapsulated in S.10 of Civil Procedure Code.
S.10: Stay of Suit

No Court to proceed with trail of any suit in which the matter in issue, is
also directly and substantially in issue. In 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 same or any other Court, in
India, Having jurisdiction to grant relief claimed.
Explanation: The pendency of a suit in a Foreign Court doesn’t preclude the Courts
in India from, trying a suit founded on same cause of action.

Scope: S.10 deals with the concept of Res Sub Judice.

Object: The object of S.10 is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from
simultaneously, trying two parallel cases, in respect of same matter in issue. The
two fold objects are:

Avoid wasting Court Resources.


Avoid Conflicting decisions.

Conditions: The conditions that are needed for Res Sub Judice to apply are

The matter in issue in both the cases are to be substantially the same

Previously instituted suit must be pending in the same or any other court
competent to grant:

Relief claimed in the suit.
Relief claimed in subsequent the suit.

and that application u/s 10 CPC can be filed in the present suit. litigating under the same title. the National Commission will not entertain a petition in respect of identical subject matter under Consumer Protection Act. Delhi Court is precluded from conducting trail and A can petition Chennai Court to direct stay of proceedings against Delhi Court. an application u/s 10 CPC. There is nothing to the effect that defendant should not question the competency of previously Court in the previously instituted suit. Equipments Ltd V Action Const Equipments Ltd 1998 Facts: The defendant had filed for stay of present suit.· Suits to the parties are to be the same or between parties under whom they or any of them claim. on ground that the matter in controversy is pending in Jamshedpur Court also. when a matter is before a competent Civil Court.10 is null and void. the date of presentation of plaint and not the date of admission is considered. only if objection with respect to lack of jurisdiction was withdrawn in Jamshedpur Court. In this case. Judgment: Court held that the conditions requisite to invoke S. ‘A’ the agent files suit for balance of accounts in Chennai. Case Laws: Dees Piston Ltd V State Bank of India 1991 Held. the defendants had raised issue of jurisdiction of Jamshedpur Court to entertain same suit. This was opposed by plaintiff on ground that. · Any decree passed in violation of S.10 as Thasildhar is not a “Court” · For purpose of institution. it doesn’t invoke S.10 CPC are: · Matter in issue in both the suits to be substantially the same. Escorts Const. ‘B’ sues the agent ‘A’ for accounts and his negligence in Delhi. · Suit to be between the same parties or parties litigating under them · Previously instituted suit to be in the same Court or a different Court. Ex: ‘A’ an agent of ‘B’ at Delhi agreed to sell B’s goods in Chennai. while case is pending in Chennai. The term suit includes appeal. · If suit is pending before a Court and subsequently an application is filed before a Thasildhar. · Pendency of suit in Foreign Court doesn’t activate S.10 CPC. which has jurisdiction to grant the relief asked. and there remains the fact that the .

that the object of prohibition in S. had not stated the Jamshedpur Court is competent. · Avoiding wastage of Court resources and time. It is a common law practice meant to bar re-litigation of cases between the same parties in the court. Thus in case of Res Judicata. operates as a stay from the same subject matter in issue being parallel instituted in two different Courts.” It is also called as Claim Preclusion. is to. Conclusion: Res Sub Judice. the doctrine of Res Judicata bars (precludes) continued litigation of such matter between the same parties. Res Judicata aims to prevent · Injustice to the parties of a case that has been supposedly concluded. A case in which there has been a final judgement and is no longer subject to appeal. S. the matter cannot be raised again. Thus relief was granted to the defendant.' Indian Bank V Maharashtra State Co-Operative Marketing Federation 1998 Held.plaintiff in their defence against S.10 CPC.10 CPC has the twin objects of · Avoiding conflicting decisions and findings. Posted by Priyadharshini Indhira at 7:38 PM 5 comments: Links to this post Labels: CPC Res Judicata Res Judicata Res Judicata in Latin means “a matter (already) judged. . · Unnecessary waste of Court resources. either in the same court or in a different court.10 CPC. · Prevent Courts of concurrent Jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel cases · Avoid inconsistent findings on the matter in issue.

Once the appeal process is exhausted or barred by limitation.A Judicial Decision Should Be Accepted As Correct. NB: This doesn’t include the process of Appeal . · Recovery of damages from the defendant twice for the same injury. finally decided between the parties. Issue Preclusion: Bars the re-litigation of factual issues that have already been necessarily determined by a judge as part of earlier claim. as it is considered to the appropriate way to challenge a judgement. 3) RE JUDICATA PRO VERITATE OCCIPITUR.It is in the Interest of the State That There Should Be End To Litigation. Res Judicata can also be related to · Claim Preclusion · Issue Preclusion Claim Preclusion: It focuses on barring a suit from being brought again on a legal cause of action.· Prevent Multiplying of judgements. that has already been. The Three Maxims Doctrine of Res Judicata or Rule of Conclusive Judgement is based on the following three maxims: 1) NEMO DEBET LIS VEXARI PRO EADEM CAUSA. Ashok Kumar V National Insurance Co 1998 S. the Res Judicata will apply to the decision.11 CPC – Rule of Conclusive Judgement: No Court shall try any suit or issue in which - The matter directly and substantially in issue - Has been - Directly and substantially in issue in a former suit - Between the same parties . 2) INTEREST REPUBLICAE UT SIT FINIS LITIUM.No Man to Be Vexed Twice For The Same Cause. Ingredients of S.C observed that the first legal maxim takes care of the private interest and the next two of the larger interest of the society.

e. a Court of limited jurisdiction where the former suit was instituted and decided upon. . irrespective of the right to appeal from a former suit. shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit (Constructive Res Judicata). the Doctrine of Res Judicata applies to the plaintiff as well as the defendant. litigating under the same title - In a court competent to try such suit - Or a suit in which the matter has been subsequently raised - And has been heard and finally decided by such court The following are also to be taken into account: 1) Former suit denotes a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question. the cut-off is date of judgement and not the date of institution of the suit. 6) When persons litigate bonafide in respect of a public / private right claimed in common for themselves and others.11 applies to execution proceedings also. 8) This S. 5) If any relief was claimed in plaint and was not granted expressly. the correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon whether or not it operates as Res Judicata. will be deemed as claiming under persons litigating. In Govndaswamy V Kasturi Ammal 1998: Held. and not if it was prior to this suit. the doctrine of Res Judicata applies to quasi judicial proceedings before tribunals also. In Slochana Amma V Narayana Nair 1994: Held. it would be deemed to have been refused in such former suit. 4) Any matter which might or ought to have been made ground of attack/defence in such former suit. even if the Court of limited jurisdiction is not competent to try the subsequent suit. shall operate as Res Judicata. all persons interested for the purpose of S. 3) The matter referred to in this suit must have been alleged by one party and either accepted or refused by the other party (expressly/impliedly). i.- Or between parties claiming under them. In Umayal Achi V MPM Ramanathan Chettiar: Held. 2) Competency of a Court is to be decided.11 . 7) It is also to be remembered that.

it is applicable only when the former suit was bonafide in nature.44 Indian Evidence Act on grounds of fraud or collusion. Jallur Venkata Seshayya V Tahdaviconda Koteswara Rao 1937 Held. in cases of repitative litigations coming under the grab of PIl. that.L.Patil V Y. Ramdas Nayak V Union of India Court observed that. that. Thus it was a matter that decided the social safety and providing hazardous free environment.11 is mandatory and not directory in nature. Applications of Rs Judicata: 1) Can be invoked in subsequent stage of same proceedings. Y. In case of Res Judicata . when it was established that the guardian of the minor had acted in collusion with the defendant. It observed that in matter s of grave public importance Res Judicata can not be used as ashield.S. Beli Ram Brothers V Chaudari Mhd Afzal It was held. it doesn’t operate as Res Judicata and can be set aside invoking S. it was high time to put an end to it. The judgement in a former suit can be avoided only by taking recourse to s. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra V State of Uttar Pardesh: S. invoking Res Judicta. . Public Interest Litigation: The concept of PIL was an innovation of Judicial Activism of Indian Supreme Court. gross negligence in former suit doesn’t amount to fraud or collusion and thus acts as bar to subsequent suit.11 Mandatory Provision: S.C observed that the writ petition before them was not a inter part y dispute and the controversy in it was whether mining was to be allowed or not.Patil: held once an order made in course of proceedings becomes final.44 Indian Evidence Act.B. further more it will not act as a shield in cases where public good is threatened or questioned. it would be binding upon the parties at subsequent stage of the same proceedings. and it is general rule f PIL that procedural laws are not fully applicable to them.

in order to give relief to the plaintiff. b) It must be necessary to decided such conflicts. Non Application of Res Judicata 1) Habeas Corpus Petitions Sunil Dutt V Union of India : Held that habeas corpus. 3) Matter collaterally and incidentally in issue doesn’t operate as Res Judicata – Sayed Mhd V Musa Ummer 4) Res Judicata not applicable to IT Proceedings or fixing of fair rent proceedings . in order to give relief to the plaintiff. filed under fresh grounds and changed circumstances will not be barred by a previous such petition. c) The questions between the plaintiffs to be finally decided. 2) Dismissal of Writ Petition In Limine Pujaril Bal V Madan Gopal : Held Res Judicata not applicable when dismissed in limine ( without speaking orders) or on grounds of laches or availability of alternate remedies. b) It must be necessary to decided such conflicts. Mahaboob Sahab V Syed Ismail: held if the following four conditions are satisfied Res Judicata will apply a) There must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned. d) Co-defendants to be necessary and proper parties to the suit 3) Can apply between Co-Plaintiffs Ahamed V Syed Meharban: satisfied Res Judicata will apply a) held if the following four conditions are There must be a conflict of interest between the co-plaintiffs. c) The questions between the defendants to be finally decided.2)Can apply against Co-Defendants.