CODE OF CIVIL PROEDURE
RES SUB JUDICE
Sub-judice is a Latin maxim meaning ‘under judgment’ or ‘under a judge’, or a matter ‘under consideration’. This maxim primarily deals with the ‘stay of suits’ with the same cause of action and matters which are pending before the same court or in separate courts. The doctrine of Res Sub-judice means ‘stay of suit’. In other words, when two or more than two cases are filed in two or more different courts with the same subject matter between the same parties, the competent court has the authority or power to ‘stay proceedings’ of another court. More precisely, any subject matter or suit of the same parties litigating under the same title, with the same issue and cause of action, as in the previous suit then the secondly instituted suit is deemed to be stayed. The stay of suits can only be done by the competent courts having jurisdiction and inherent powers.
OBJECT:
The main aim of this doctrine is to prevent the courts from entertaining two parallel litigations and as well as reduce the overburden of the judiciary. As two or more courts hear a matter between two same parties with the same titles and issues, their judgments could be contrary resulting in a multiplicity of suits which is an important impact of Res Sub-judice on parallel litigations. In Indian law, Section 10 of the CPC deals with the concept of Res Sub-judice.
SCOPE:
The scope of Section 10 of the CPC,, deals with res Sub-judice which states ‘stay of suit’ as “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 claiming 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.”
Essential conditions for the application of this provision
1. Two suits- There must be two suits, one previously instituted and the other subsequently instituted.
2. Directly and Substantially- The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit.
3. Same parties- The parties involved in both the suits must be the same.
4. Jurisdiction of Court- The previously instituted suit must be pending in a court in India or a Court beyond the limits of India but established or continued by the Central government of India.
5. Competent Court- The Court in which the previous suit is instituted must be competent and have the jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit.
6. The same title- The parties involved must be litigating under the same title.
The fundamental aim or nexus underlying this section is to bring the action to a close, to avoid harassing the defendant, to avoid squandering the court’s resources, and to avoid delaying the court’s proceedings. The fundamental goal of this Section, according to the case of Guru Prasad v. Bijay Kumar, is to eliminate the conclusion of two conflicting rulings on the same topic. However, it would not be against this Doctrine if the two suits were dealt with concurrently by a single Court in order to deliver justice.
Any suit can be filed in a foreign court in line with the jurisdictional limitations, and the same can be filed in Indian courts if the matter requires judgment under Indian law, which must also be done within the jurisdictional limits. The fundamental goal of this section is to prevent a person from filing repeated lawsuits against the same individual in the same matter, resulting in inconsistent decisions in each suit. It also protects the defendant from being harassed for no reason.
Non-Applicability of Res Sub-judice-Not applicable between the suits where parties are the same but the issues are not the same. Not applicable when the former suit or subsequent suit is filed in a foreign court that is not under the Control of the Indian Central Government and Supreme Court of India.Not applicable in the interim orders passed by the Court of Law.
PURPOSE OF RES SUB JUDICE
1. To avoid wastage of the Court’s time and resources.
2. To avoid the judiciary’s overburdening by the multiplicity of suits.
3. To avoid inconvenience to the parties and prevent them from unnecessary harassment.
4. To prevent the judiciary from delivering conflicting decisions due to the multiplicity of suits.
Exceptions to Section 10 of CPCBecause it is quite precise in its content and begins with the words, No Court shall proceed with the trial of any litigation, this Section shall only be utilised to stay or restrict the trial of a suit. As a result, it has been decisively established that it solely applies to the trial and not to any other relevant actions. If the matters in the issue are distinct and not directly similar but different, Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot be invoked.
In the case of Abdur v. Asrafun, it was held that even if there are a few common or similar difficulties, but there are other matters that are completely distinct from the previous suit, Section 10 cannot be invoked. This Section is not applicable for litigation where the parties are the same in both suits but the matter in question isn’t the same in both suits, as explained in the case of Manzar v. Rema.
There is no bar or stay of proceedings when a subsequent suit or an earlier suit is filed in a foreign court that is not created or under the control of the Central Government of India or the Supreme Court of India. Interlocutory or any Interim Orders are also well-established exceptions to the Res Subjudice Doctrine. Even without proceeding with the trial, some orders are passed, and such orders cannot necessarily involve Section 10. This demonstrates that Section 10 and the Doctrine of Res Subjudice can only be used to stop trials and cannot be used to stop other interim orders made by the Court of Law. In the case of Sennaji Kapuechand v. Pannaji Devachand (1931) this was strongly established.
What is the inherent power of the Court to put stay?
In the situations when Section 10 is not applicable, the court can put stay on the proceedings under the power given in Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 151 gives inherent power to the court to make such order which is necessary for securing ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Section 151 gives discretionary power to secure ends of justice when there is no application of Section 10.
LANDMARK CASES1. Dees Piston v. State Bank of India
In this case, the petitioner already had his matter pending in the District forum, Jaipur with the same subject matter and between the same parties. The National Consumer Redressal Commission held that when an issue is pending before a competent court of law, the National Commission has no competence to accept a petition in respect of an identical subject matter under the Consumer Protection Act. It noted that it is open for the petitioner to raise all the contentions in the District forum itself where the matter is already pending. The Commission reiterated that when a matter is subjudice in a competent court, this commission shall not interfere and entertain identical subject matter between the same parties, and the doctrine of Res sub-judice will apply.
2. Anurag and Co. and Anr. V. Additional District Judge and others (2006)
A matter was pending before the Additional District Judge, Sikar in which the plaintiffs filed four separate civil suits against a common defendant for the recovery of a different amount, due on different dates in favour of four different plaintiffs. The defendant was common. The defendant prayed for the consolidation of all four matters. The Additional District Judge observed that the four different civil suits for recovery of money cannot be consolidated as the plaintiffs are different, cause of action, and amount are different. The suits cannot be consolidated merely on the ground that the defendant is common.The matter reached Rajasthan High Court and the court observed that under section 151 of the Code, the consolidation of actions is considered in order to assist justice and fairness to both parties. It also safeguards the party from a plethora of cases, delays, and frivolous litigation. The parties are also relieved of having to present the same evidence twice. However in the given situation when there is no substantial similarity between the parties and issues involved, and even the cause of action arose on different dates and the burden of proof lies on different plaintiffs, and also the matter is pending before the same court, the Court formed the view that there exists no relevant circumstance for consolidation and the non- consolidation by the Additional District Judge does not defeat the purpose.
3. Maharashtra State Co-Operative v. Indian Bank (1996)
The point of issue, in this case, was whether the doctrine of res sub-judice will apply to summary suits under Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. In this case, Indian Bank filed a summary suit for the recovery of a particular amount. In the same suit, Maharashtra State Cop. Marketing Federation, the other party, objected to staying the suit as the matter was directly and substantially in issue in a previous suit filed in 1991 which was already pending. The Court held that where the matter is ongoing before the appropriate court and the subject matter is directly and essentially the same in a previously launched suit between the same parties, the Civil Court should not proceed with the trial of the complaint in order to give the relief sought.
4. National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v C Parameshwara, 2005
The issue was whether a previous suit filed under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking a stay of civil suit was maintainable. The Court held that the purpose of this clause is to avoid courts of concurrent jurisdiction (in some situations, more than one court may have jurisdiction to hear a dispute) from hearing two parallel litigations in relation to the same dispute at the same time. However, the whole subject matter has to be identical. Section 10 is preferable to a suit instituted in a civil court. The scope of a Writ petition is entirely different from a normal civil suit. The Court also observed that the inherent power under Section 151 cannot be exercised to nullify the provisions of the code.
CONCLUSION
Res Sub-judice is the provision given in Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to stay or put an injunction on a subsequent suit if the matter in the subsequent suit is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties before a competent court. The essential elements which are necessary to be met before the application of Section 10 are that the parties in both the suit (previous and subsequent) must be the same, the matter in both the suit must be directly and substantially the same, the previous court must be competent to provide the relief claimed, and that the parties must be contesting under the same title. The purpose of the provision of res-subjudice is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and save the resources of the court and the parties and also to avoid a situation of inconsistent rulings in cases related to the same issue. The Court can pass interim orders such as temporary injunction, attachment orders, amendment of plaint or written statement, the appointment of a receiver, etc. There are certain exceptions to this provision as well; that if the matter is pending before a foreign court, the parties can move to Indian courts to get relief. There is no bar on the competency of Indian Courts to try as suit if the suit is previously sub judice in a foreign court. Also, the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provides some inherent powers under its Section 151 under which the Court can stay the proceeding in a subsequent suit even when the essentials of Section 10 are not strictly met, to serve the ends of justice Similarly the Court has inherent power to consolidate different suits between the same parties when the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same.