Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Stay of Suit
Civil Procedure Code
Stay of Suit
STAY OF SUIT 2
Flow chart on section 10 4
Nature of Section 10 5
Scope of Section 10 5
Essential conditions of Res Sub Judice: 6
The Objective behind the applicability of Res Sub- judice: 6
Subject Matter of Section 10: 6
Exceptions to the rule of Res Sub Judice: 7
Illustrations and case study on Section 10: 7
Other Provisions dealing with Stay of Suit in C.P.C: 8
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS IN JUDICIARY MAINS ON THE TOPIC OF STAY OF SUIT: 8
STAY OF SUIT
Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter C.P.C) provides for the Stay of a suit.
This Section states:
Stay of Suit: 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.
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.
Before we delve into the theory about Section 10 of the C.P.C, it is important to dissect this
Section and understand the meaning assigned to each and every word of it. In this regard,
kindly refer to the under mentioned flowchart:
Nature of Section 10
The roots of Section 10 of the C.P.C lie in the first part of Section 9 which states that “The
Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a
civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly
barred.” Here we must note that Section 10 expressly bars those suits the subject matter of
which is already pending either in the same Court or in any other Court having jurisdiction.
Even though Section 10 does not expressly use the term Res Sub Judice, the crux of the
entire Section is found in this word which literally means: ‘a matter in issue’ or ‘under
judgment’.
A matter in issue or fact in issue is defined as ‘the ultimate fact or state of facts set forth in
legal pleadings on which a verdict or finding is predicted as distinguished from the
evidentiary facts offered to prove the ultimate facts or fact pleaded.’1
Scope of Section 10
A focussed reading of the first line of Section 10 - Stay of Suits i.e. ‘No Court shall proceed
with the trial of any suit.....” indicates that a suit may be instituted upon the same matter
which is already pending in a Court having jurisdiction. Though, an understanding of the
entire Section tells us that the merits cannot be determined again. Hence, the subsequent
suit cannot be dismissed by a court, but must be stayed. However, in the case of Pukhraj D
Jain v. G. Gopalkrishna (2004) 7 SCC 251, the apex Court held that ‘Section 10 does not take
away the power of the Court to examine the merits of the matter. If the Court is satisfied
that subsequent suit can be decided purely on legal point, it is open to the Court to decide
such suit.’ Similarly, a civil court also has inherent power under Section 151 to:
i. Stay a suit even when the conditions of Section 10 are not completely fulfilled, in
light of meeting the ends of justice.
ii. ‘To consolidate different suits between the same parties in which the matter in
issue is substantially the same.’2
Further, Section 10 is simply a rule of procedure. This implies that the parties can choose to
waive their rights i.e. they can expressly request the Court to proceed with a subsequent
suit and upon doing so they are not in a position to subsequently challenge the validity of
the latter proceedings.3
Finally, the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Coop. Mktg.
Federation Ltd., (1998) 5 SCC 69 has stated that ‘an order of a stay of suit does not take
away the power of the Court from passing interim orders.’ This means that even if a suit
has stayed under Section 10 of the C.P.C, this does not imply that interim orders of
1
https://law.academic.ru/67427/matter_in_issue
2
C.K. Takwani, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ed.8th, 2017- EBC
3
C.K. Takwani, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ed.8th, 2017- EBC
attachment before judgment, the appointment of the receiver, temporary injunction etc
cannot be passed.
6. The Court which is already trying the previous suit must have jurisdiction to grant
adequate relief in the matter.
7. The title of the litigating parties must be the same.
And also, to protect a person from the multiplicity of proceedings along with avoiding
conflicting decisions in the same matter.’4
4
Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Marketing Cooperation Ltd 1998 (5) SCC 69
the presentation of a plaint.5 From the various decisions of the Court, it can be derived that
the suit includes appeals, however the same is not applicable to other proceedings.
In the case of Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Marketing Cooperation Ltd 1998 (5) SCC 69,
the Supreme Court has clarified that ‘though the heading of Section 10 provides for the Stay
of Suit, the language of the body indicates that the rule of Res Sub Judice applies only to the
trial and not the institution of the Suit per se.’ The rationale being that, in a scenario where
the earlier suit is hit by technicalities and the institution of a subsequent suit is barred, it
would lead to injustice.
Meaning of the term ‘pending’. Till the time a final decree has not been passed, the suit is
pending. This connotation can be derived from Section 2(2) which essentially describes a
decree as conclusively determining the rights of the parties.
i. Explanation 1 to Section 10: 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.
ii. Summary Suits: In the case of Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Marketing
Cooperation Ltd 1998 (5) SCC 69, it was held that summary proceedings under
Order 37 of the C.P.C are not a trial per se as a consequence to which Section 10
will not apply to them.
iii. No Court shall proceed with a trial: Section 10 only bars the trial of a suit. Thus,
the Court can grant an interim order, interlocutory order and appoint a receiver
despite a pending suit.
2. Case Study: In the case of Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal 1962 AIR 527, the issue of
applicability of Res Subjudice under Section 10 of the C.P.C arose. The fact situation,
in brief, was that a contract was made between A and B that in case of a dispute, the
suit would be filed in Jaipur. Since one of the parties was residing in Mumbai, B filed
a suit in Mumbai and A filed a subsequent suit in Jaipur.
5
https://law.academic.ru/67427/suit
The Court, in this case, held that consent can only confer and not take away the
power under Section 10. Since Section 10 is above a contract, Res Sub Judice will
apply to the case in Jaipur. The bearing of the jurisdiction in a contract will not
override Section 10. The court further held that ‘the language of Section 10 is clear,
definite and mandatory. It prohibits the trial of a subsequent suit. It makes no
difference that a suit was filed in the violation of the contractual agreement of the
parties.’