Doctrine of Res-subjudice Stay of suit – Section 10 of C.P.C.

10 Stay of suitNo 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 [India] established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before 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 Important Points :- Section 10 of the C.P.C. deals with the stay of the suit and it states that no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue (directly or substantially in issue) in a previously instituted suit between the same parties and the court in which the previous suit is pending is competent to grant relief.

Essential Condition for Application of Section 10
 

  

There are two suits, one is previously instituted and other subsequently instituted. The matter in issue in the subsequent suit is (directly and substantially in issue) in the previous suit. The parties to both the suit are the same. The previously instituted suit must be pending. The court in which the previous suit is pending has jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit. Both the parties are litigating under the same title in both the suits.

has an agent A at Calicut employed to sell his goods there. The suit at Calcutta shall not proceed. A sues B in Calicut claiming a balance due upon an account in respect of dealing between him and B.  . During the pendency of the suit in Calicut.Illustration  B. residing in calcutta. B instituted a suit against A in Calcutta for an account and for damages caused A’s alleged negligence.

. litigating under the same title. in a court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. or between parties under whom they or any of them claim.Doctrine of Res-judicata   Section 11 -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. and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.

litigating under the same title. and has been heard and finally decided by such Court (former court) .Essentials            No Court shall try any suit or No Court shall try any issue in which (in present suit) the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties. in a court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. . or between parties under whom they or any of them claim.

Purvanyaya = Former judgement Puryanyaya = Matters Already Decided    This doctrine is accepted by Muslim Jurists .History of Res-judicata  This doctrine is very ancient and well accepted in Hindu Jurists under heading Purvanyaya.

  . interest of the state lies in that there should be limitation to law suits.History of Res-judicata  Under Roman Law – it was known as “exceptio rei judicatae” Exceptio rej judicatae = Previous judgement Under English Law – It is known as “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” i.e.

  .History of Res-judicata  In the present era the doctrine of resjudicata based on the following maxims: Nemo debet lis vaxari pro una eteadem – None should be vexed twice for the same cause Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium – it is in the interest of state that there should be an end to a litigation Res-judicata pro veritate occipitur – a judicial decision must be accepted as correct.

The suit is dismissed. Situation II  Suit is dismissed on contest. Situation III  Suit is proceeded ex-parte and then dismissed. .Illustration :. A subsequently filed another suit against B for damage for breach of contract.A filed a suit against for breach of a contract. Whether subsequent suit is barred ?    Situation I  Suit is dismissed for default.

Matter in Issue   In a suit matter in issue is classified as follows Matters in Issue     Matter Matter Matter Matter directly in issue substantially in issue collaterally in issue incidentally in issue  Matter directly & substantially in issue   Matter actually in issue Matter constructively in issue .

This suit is dismissed and it is held that deed is fictitious. The matter in issue in the subsequent suit  relief demanded on the basis of same sale deed which has been declared fictitious. The defence taken by B that there is no rent due. A subsequent suit for some other properties on the basis of the same sale deed has been filed.  Comment  Here in this illustration  Matter in issue  claim for rent       Illustration 2 :.A files a suit against B for rent dues.Matter directly & Substantially in issue – Exp. . III  Illustration 1 :. Hence the subsequent suit is barred by res-judicata. whether the question of res judicata shall apply if yes they why? Comment :. B taken the defence that the deed is fictitious.The matter in issue in the former suit is  Entitlement of possession on the basis of genuineness of sale deed.A files a suit against B for possession of a property on the basis of a sale deed in his favour.

 A suit filed on 20-01-2007 which is pending for disposal but in case as suit which was filed on 20-01-2008 but disposed of.Definition of FORMER SUITThe expression "former suit" shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.Explanations of Section 11    Explanation I. then the suit which has been filed on 20-01-2008 shall be called as Former suit. .

Explanations of Section 11  Explanation II. Determination of Competence of a Court Provisions as to right of appeal from decision of such court   . the competence of a court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court. For the purposes of this section.

III)  Explanation III. The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted.Explanations of Section 11 Matter directly & substantially in issue (Exp. by the other. admission (express or implied)    . Matter referred to must be present in the former suit The presence of the said matter be in the form of allegation by one party and Responded by other either in the form of denial. expressly or impliedly.

Explanations of Section 11 Matter constructively in issue (Exp.judicata  Explanation IV. Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. . IV)  Constructive res.

On merit suit is dismissed.   A filed a suit against B for declaration that he is entitled to certain land as heir of C.Illustration  A filed a suit against B for possession of a property on the basis of ownership. A filed subsequent suit and this time claiming the possession on the property on the basis that he is mortgagee. The suit dismissed on merit. Comment  A can not raised this point in the subsequent suit as he ought to take this ground in the previous suit but he failed to take this point in earlier suit so he is barred by law to do so in the subsequent suit. A then filed another suit claiming the same property on the ground of adverse possession. Comment ? .

Explanations of Section 11  Explanation V. Any relief claimed in the plaint. which is not expressly granted by the decree. shall for the purposes of this section. be deemed to have been refused. .

be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating. VI) Vs PIL  Explanation VI. for the purposes of this section. Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right. all persons interested in such right shall. . claimed in common for themselves and others.Explanations of Section 11  Representative suits (Exp.

to a proceeding for the execution of the decree.Explanations of Section 11  [Explanation VII. question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. . issue of former suit shall be construed as references respectively. The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit.

Explanations of Section 11  Explanation VIII. notwithstanding that such court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised . shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. competent to decide such issue. An issue heard and finally decided by a court of limited jurisdiction.

(Explanation II + VIII)     5. 4.. Explanation to be read with this condition.. 2. IV is to be read with this condition) 3.The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim. (Exp.Conditions for Res-judicata  1.The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit..-The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (Explanation III) and constructively (Explanation IV) in the former suit.The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised.The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit ..

IV) .Matter in Issue Matter in Issue ____________|_____________ | | Matter directly & Matter collaterally Substantially in issue or incidentally in ________|______________ Issue | | Actual in Issue(Ex.III) Constructively in issue (Ex.

(1) Matter of title (2) claim of rent  . A sues B for two reliefs:. – Hence the “claim of rent” is a matter directly and substantially in issue. B denies A’s title and contends that no rent is due.(1) for declaration of title upon a land and (2) for the rent of the said land.Illustration . Here in the said problem there are two matters which is directly and substantially in issue i.1  A sue B for rent. Here the claim for rent is the matter in respect of which relief claimed. The defence of B is that no rent is due.e.

Illustration . alleging that as the nearest reversionary heir of X. he became entitled to the property on the death of the widow. After the death of the widow. and that the alienation made by her in favour of B was not binding upon him. Subsequently. The court finds that A and X were separate and A’s suit is dismissed.2  X a Hindu. dies leaving behind a widow. A Alleging that the he and X were members of a joint family sues B for a declaration that he is entitled to the property by right of survivoreship. Whether the suit barred by resjudicata ? Since the matter in issue of the former suit was “claim of title on the property gifted by widow to the B” . B of certain property belonging to her husband. The widow makes a gift to her brother. A sues B for recovery of the same property.

 There are four rules on the basis of which concept of constructive res-judicata can be discussed –  Constructive res-judicata Explanation . which if claimed in the first suit would have made that suit bad for multifariousness. that it ought to have been made a ground of attack in that suit. it will be deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue in that suit within the meaning of Explanation IV. but was omitted to be so alleged in that suit. though the right in the subsequent suit is sought to be established by a title different from that in the first suit. the subsequent suit will be barred by resjudicata.  .   Where the right claimed in the subsequent suit is different from that in former suit and it is claimed under a different title. then subsequent suit is not barred by resjudicata It cannot be said of a relief. If a matter which forms a ground of attack in the subsequent suit could have been alleged as a ground of defence in the former suit.IV Where right claimed in both the suits is the same.

Anshuman  .Res-judicata Vs Estoppel Estoppel is the part of Evidence Act and it prevents a person from saying one thing at one time and contradicting it later Where as res-judicata preclude a man from avowing the same thing in successive litigation.  Estoppel prohibits the party after the inquiry has already been entered upon. the proving the Under process of development -.

Res-judicata Vs Public Interest Litigation    1986 (I) SCC 100 – Forward Construction Co. 1989 (Suppl. Limited Vs Prabhat Mandal & ors. Explanation –IV applies to PIL but is applied for PIL Vs PIL and not for Private Litigation Vs PIL.P. . I) SCC 504 – Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Vs State of U.

15) Where subject matter situated (subject to pecuniary & limitation) i.PLACE OF SUE   Section 15 to Section 25 Court in which the suit be instituted   Lowest grade competent to try(S. suit for sale Suit for redemption Suit for charge Suit for determination of any right or interest in Immovable Property Suit for compensation for wrong to immovable property Suit for recovery of movable property under attachment . where the property situated            a a Recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profit Suit for partition. suit for foreclosures.e.

35. Pt. Panjab by Punjab Act 7 of 1934 . see Gazette of India. or in any court beyond the limits of – 11. [India] from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action. 35 of 1948 and 24 of 1954.Assam by Assam Acts 2 of 1941 and 8 of 1953 . 13 and 50) shall come into force .Assam by Assam Acts 2 of 1941 and 8 of 1953 . Acts 4 of 1925. Pt. 1977 as the date on which the provision of the said Act (except Secs. p. This Act has been amended in its application to. For Statement of Objects and Reasons. 12 and 50 of the said Act shall come into force. Sec. p. Pt. 0. Rajasthan by Rajasthan Act 19 of 1958 and U. Pt. V. Extraordinary. Acts 4 of 1925. see Gazette of India. 35 of 1948 and 24 of 1954. see Gazette of India.P. V.. see Gazette of India. For Statement of Objects and Reasons. Panjab by Punjab Act 7 of 1934 . 1977 as the date on which Secs. Pt. V. 0. This Act has been amended in its application to.P. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act. Mysore by Mysore Act 14 of 1955. 1954 . dated 14th January. G. V. 1954 .. Kerala by Kerala Act 13 of 1957 . 35. 0. Published in the Gazette of India.. 1907. Rajasthan by Rajasthan Act 19 of 1958 and U.R. Mysore by Mysore Act 14 of 1955. and (2) The first day of May. 1977. 1907. Pt. 35 of 1948 and 24 of 1954. 179 . p. [India] established or continued by 22. 1908. Acts 4 of 1925. or before [the Supreme Court). and for Report of the Select Committee. 35. Madras by Madras Act 34 of 1950 and Madras A. 179 . Madras by Madras Act 34 of 1950 and Madras A. Mysore by Mysore Act 14 of 1955. p. 1907. Madras by Madras Act 34 of 1950 and Madras A. Explanation. . Rajasthan by Rajasthan Act 19 of 1958 and U. 12. 15 (E). 1976 (10 of 1976). 179 . For Statement of Objects and Reasons. p. 1908. Kerala by Kerala Act 13 of 1957 . V.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Sec. 1908.S. p. Panjab by Punjab Act 7 of 1934 . and for Report of the Select Committee. see Gazette of India.Assam by Assam Acts 2 of 1941 and 8 of 1953 . This Act has been amended in its application to. see Gazette of India. The pendency of a suit in a foreign court does not preclude the courts in 11. 3 (i). II. V. [the Central Government] [* * *] and having like jurisdiction. the Central Government hereby appoints: (1) The first day of February. and for Report of the Select Committee. Pt.   11. Kerala by Kerala Act 13 of 1957 . 1954 .P. [India] having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed.