DOCTRINE OF RES SUB JUDICE DOES NOT BAR THE INSTITUTION OF SECOND SUIT
Judicial dexterity is not solely confined to judges and courts—it significantly relies on the proper application of general laws and legal doctrines. To truly understand the scope of judicial prudence, one must comprehend the functioning of courts and the implementation of appropriate legal principles.
The term “sub judice” is derived from Latin, meaning “under judgment.” It implies that a matter is currently under consideration by a court. The doctrine of res sub judice is codified under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The doctrine effectively provides for the stay of a suit where the matter is already pending adjudication. Thus, a party may seek to prevent the trial of a second suit based on this principle.
The rationale behind this provision is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two suits involving the same parties, same cause of action, and same subject matter. It aims to avoid:
Multiplicity of proceedings
Wastage of judicial time
Risk of conflicting judgments
Harassment of parties through repetitive litigation
Section 10 reads as follows:
“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.”
The doctrine is procedural in nature and does not confer any substantive right. Therefore, parties may waive the benefit of Section 10.
Case Law: In Gangaprasad v. Banaspati, AIR 1937, it was held that if parties waive their right and expressly request the court to proceed with the subsequent suit, they cannot later challenge the validity of such proceedings.
Moreover, the bar under Section 10 applies only to the trial of the suit, not to its institution.
To prevent the same party from being vexed twice for the same cause.
To avoid contradictory judgments by courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
To ensure judicial discipline and consistency.
To prevent duplication of litigation and conserve judicial resources.
To maintain judicial economy and procedural efficiency.
To prevent the same party from being vexed twice for the same cause.
To avoid contradictory judgments by courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
To ensure judicial discipline and consistency.
To prevent duplication of litigation and conserve judicial resources.
To maintain judicial economy and procedural efficiency.
The doctrine of res sub judice applies when the following conditions are satisfied:
Two suits must be instituted—one prior and one subsequent.
The matter in issue in both suits must be directly and substantially the same.
The suits must involve the same parties or their legal representatives.
The previously instituted suit must be pending in the same court or any other court in India, or in a foreign court established by the Central Government, or before the Supreme Court.
The earlier court must have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit.
The parties must be litigating under the same title in both suits.
Case Law: In Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 10 are mandatory, and the court must stay the subsequent suit if all conditions are satisfied.
Even in cases where Section 10 is not strictly applicable, courts possess inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to stay a suit to serve the ends of justice.
Case Law: Jado Rai v. Onkar Prasad, AIR 1975 – The court exercised its inherent powers to stay the suit, even though the statutory conditions of Section 10 were not fully met.
The order of stay under Section 10 does not deprive the court of its power to pass interim orders.
Case Law: In Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., AIR 1998 SC 1952, the Supreme Court held that even in a stayed suit, the court may pass interim orders such as:
Attachment before judgment
Temporary injunctions
Appointment of a receiver
Amendment of pleadings
Pendency in Foreign Courts
The Explanation to Section 10 clarifies that the pendency of a suit in a foreign court does not bar Indian courts from trying a suit instituted on the same cause of action.
Effect of Decree Passed in Contravention of Section 10
A decree passed in violation of Section 10 is not void. It is a valid decree and cannot be ignored in execution proceedings.
Case Law: Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna, AIR 2004 SC 3504 – The Supreme Court held that even if the decree is passed in contravention of Section 10, it remains enforceable unless set aside by a competent court.
The Doctrine of Res Sub Judice aims to uphold judicial economy, consistency, and fairness. However, it is crucial to understand that Section 10 bars only the trial of a subsequently instituted suit—it does not bar its institution. Courts retain the discretion to allow the suit to be filed but must refrain from proceeding with the trial until the prior suit is resolved.
Thus, the doctrine serves as a procedural safeguard, not a jurisdictional prohibition.
Thus, the doctrine serves as a procedural safeguard, not a jurisdictional prohibition.
Good
ReplyDelete