The Rule of Res Sub judice under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Sub judice in Latin means, “Under Judgment” which denotes that a matter or case being considered by the Judge. When two or more cases filed between the same parties on the same subject matter, the competent court has the power to stay the proceedings of the suit.
Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 declares that No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is 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 Main object of the rule of Res Sub Judice is to prevent the courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously adjudicating two parallel issues involving the same cause of action, the same subject matter the same relief.
The intention of the law is to restrict the plaintiff to one litigation, thus doing away with the possibility of two mutually opposed decisions by the same or any other court in respect of the same relief.
As held in Aspi Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjan – AIR 2013 SC 1712, the provision of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is mandatory to avoid contradictory verdicts, and prevent multiplicity of litigation.
The Supreme Court in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara – 2004 AIOL Com 1243, while interpreting Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 said that the object of courts is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from trying two parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same matter in the issue as held in Aspi Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjan reported in AIR 2013 SC 1712, the matter in issue means the entire subject matter.
It is clear that the purpose of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and harassment of parties. However, where subsequently instituted suit can be decided on purely legal points without taking evidence, it is always open to the Court to do so and not keep the suit pending as held by the judgment of Satyendra Kumar v. Raj Nath Dubey reported in AIR 2016 SC 2231.
The purposes of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in short is to as follows:
- Avoid wasting Court Resources.
- Avoid Conflicting decisions.
- Avoid multiplicity of suit.
For the application of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the practice, the following conditions must be satisfied:
- Existence of two suits, one previously instituted and the other subsequently instituted
- Issue in the subsequent suit should be substantially an issue in the previous suit.
- Parties should be the same in both the suits.
- It is the same court where a previously instituted suit is already pending and a subsequent suit is brought to it or in any other court in India or outside India constituted by the Central Government or before the Supreme Court.
- The Court where the previous suit has been instituted must have jurisdiction to grant the relief that has been claimed in the subsequent suit also.
- Litigation should be under the same title in both the suits.
No sooner the above conditions are satisfied the court is barred from proceeding with the suit subsequently instituted since the provisions laid down in Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are mandatory and the court cannot exercise any discretion.
Even where the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 do not strictly apply, a Civil Court has inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to stay a suit in the ends of Justice. Similarly, a court has inherent power to consolidate various suits between the same parties in which the matter in issue is substantially the same.
Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for stay of a subsequently instituted suit only at the trial stage as held by the judgment of Ranju Ram v. Nand Lal reported in AIR 2011 HP 35.
The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Court in Bangladesh and from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action. Therefore civil court should not proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties and the court before which the previously instituted suit is pending is competent to grant the relief sought. The stay must be of the latter suit and not of the earlier suit between the same parties. The word suit includes an appeal, but it does not include an application for leave to appeal.
For Example, Wife A filed a suit for separation of conjugal life and custody of minor child against husband B. Subsequently husband B claimed custody of minor child by filling another suit against wife B. The second suit liable to stay under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
But problem arises when part of the subject matter is common to previously instituted suit and subsequently instituted suit. In a case the Appellate Division that only one plot was common in two suits, but that was not considered as a ground for stay and it was held that the two suits should be tried analogously.
The Court cannot apply this section where point at issues are distinct and different, or even where there are some issues in common and others are different issues. This section is also not applicable between the suits where although the parties are same, but the issues are not the same.
Author: Ashvath Neelakandan,
Third Year Law Student at Chettinad School of Law
