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:

1)      Avoid wasting Court Resources.

2)      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:

A)     Relief claimed in the suit.

B)      Relief claimed in subsequent the suit.

·         Suits to the parties are to be the same or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title.

·         Pendency of suit in Foreign Court doesn’t activate S.10 CPC.

·         If suit is pending before a Court and subsequently an application is filed before a Thasildhar, it doesn’t invoke S.10 as Thasildhar is not a “Court”

·         For purpose of institution, the date of presentation of plaint and not the date of admission is considered. The term suit includes appeal.

·         Any decree passed in violation of S.10 is null and void.

Ex:          ‘A’ an agent of ‘B’ at Delhi agreed to sell B’s goods in Chennai. ‘A’ the agent files suit for balance of accounts in Chennai. ‘B’ sues the agent ‘A’ for accounts and his negligence in Delhi; while case is pending in Chennai. In this case, Delhi Court is precluded from conducting trail and A can petition Chennai Court to direct stay of proceedings against Delhi Court.

Case Laws:

Dees Piston Ltd  V State Bank of India 1991

                                Held, when a matter is before a competent Civil Court, the National Commission will not entertain a petition in respect of identical subject matter under Consumer Protection Act.

Escorts Const. Equipments Ltd V Action Const Equipments Ltd 1998

Facts: The defendant had filed for stay of present suit, an application u/s 10 CPC, on ground that the matter in controversy is pending in Jamshedpur Court also. This was opposed by plaintiff on ground that, the defendants had raised issue of jurisdiction of Jamshedpur Court to entertain same suit; and that application u/s 10 CPC can be filed in the present suit, only if objection with respect to lack of jurisdiction was withdrawn in Jamshedpur Court.

Judgment: Court held that the conditions requisite to invoke S.10 CPC are:

·         Matter in issue in both the suits to be substantially the same.

·         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, which has jurisdiction to grant the relief asked.

There is nothing to the effect that defendant should not question the competency of previously Court in the previously instituted suit, and there remains the fact that the plaintiff in their defence against S.10 CPC, had not stated the Jamshedpur Court is competent. Thus relief was granted to the defendant.'

Indian Bank V Maharashtra State Co-Operative Marketing Federation 1998

                Held, that the object of prohibition in S.10 CPC, is to,

·         Prevent Courts of concurrent Jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel cases

·         Avoid inconsistent findings on the matter in issue.

Conclusion:

                                Res Sub Judice, operates as a stay from the same subject matter in issue being parallel instituted in two different Courts. S.10 CPC has the twin objects of

·         Avoiding conflicting decisions and findings.

·         Avoiding wastage of Court resources and time.