Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

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 doesnt 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)
B)

Relief claimed in the suit.


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 doesnt activate S.10 CPC.

If suit is pending before a Court and subsequently an application is filed


before a Thasildhar, it doesnt 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 Bs 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.

Posted by Priyadharshini Indhira at 7:38 PM 5 comments: Links to this post


Labels: CPC
Res Judicata

Res Judicata

Res Judicata in Latin means a matter (already) judged. It is also called as


Claim Preclusion. It is a common law practice meant to bar re-litigation of cases
between the same parties in the court.
A case in which there has been a final judgement and is no longer subject to
appeal, the doctrine of Res Judicata bars (precludes) continued litigation of such
matter between the same parties. Thus in case of Res Judicata, the matter cannot
be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court.
Res Judicata aims to prevent

Injustice to the parties of a case that has been supposedly concluded.

Unnecessary waste of Court resources.

Prevent Multiplying of judgements.

Recovery of damages from the defendant twice for the same injury.

Res Judicata can also be related to

Claim Preclusion

Issue Preclusion

Claim Preclusion: It focuses on barring a suit from being brought again on a legal
cause of action, that has already been, finally decided between the parties.
Issue Preclusion: Bars the re-litigation of factual issues that have already been
necessarily determined by a judge as part of earlier claim.
NB: This doesnt include the process of Appeal , as it is considered to the
appropriate way to challenge a judgement. Once the appeal process is exhausted or
barred by limitation, the Res Judicata will apply to the decision.
The Three Maxims
Doctrine of Res Judicata or Rule of Conclusive Judgement is based on the
following three maxims:

1)
NEMO DEBET LIS VEXARI PRO EADEM CAUSA- No Man to Be Vexed Twice For
The Same Cause.
2)
INTEREST REPUBLICAE UT SIT FINIS LITIUM- It is in the Interest of the State
That There Should Be End To Litigation.
3)
RE JUDICATA PRO VERITATE OCCIPITUR- A Judicial Decision Should Be Accepted
As Correct.

Ashok Kumar V National Insurance Co 1998


S.C observed that the first legal maxim takes care of the private interest
and the next two of the larger interest of the society.

Ingredients of S.11 CPC Rule of Conclusive Judgement:


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

Or between parties claiming under them, litigating under the same title

In a court competent to try such suit

Or a suit in which the matter has been subsequently raised

And has been heard and finally decided by such court

The following are also to be taken into account:

1)
Former suit denotes a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in
question, and not if it was prior to this suit. i.e. the cut-off is date of judgement and
not the date of institution of the suit.
2)
Competency of a Court is to be decided, irrespective of the right to appeal
from a former suit.
3)
The matter referred to in this suit must have been alleged by one party and
either accepted or refused by the other party (expressly/impliedly).
4)
Any matter which might or ought to have been made ground of
attack/defence in such former suit, shall be deemed to have been a matter directly
and substantially in issue in such suit (Constructive Res Judicata).
5)
If any relief was claimed in plaint and was not granted expressly, it would be
deemed to have been refused in such former suit.
6)
When persons litigate bonafide in respect of a public / private right claimed in
common for themselves and others, all persons interested for the purpose of S.11 ,
will be deemed as claiming under persons litigating.
7)
It is also to be remembered that, a Court of limited jurisdiction where the
former suit was instituted and decided upon, shall operate as Res Judicata, even if
the Court of limited jurisdiction is not competent to try the subsequent suit.
8)

This S.11 applies to execution proceedings also.

In Slochana Amma V Narayana Nair 1994: Held, the doctrine of Res Judicata
applies to quasi judicial proceedings before tribunals also.
In Govndaswamy V Kasturi Ammal 1998:
Held, the Doctrine of Res Judicata
applies to the plaintiff as well as the defendant.
In Umayal Achi V MPM Ramanathan Chettiar:
Held, the correctness or
otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon whether or not it operates as
Res Judicata.

S.11 Mandatory Provision:


S.11 is mandatory and not directory in nature. The judgement in a former
suit can be avoided only by taking recourse to s.44 Indian Evidence Act on grounds
of fraud or collusion.
Beli Ram Brothers V Chaudari Mhd Afzal
It was held, that, when it was established that the guardian of the minor had
acted in collusion with the defendant, it doesnt operate as Res Judicata and can be
set aside invoking S.44 Indian Evidence Act.
Jallur Venkata Seshayya V Tahdaviconda Koteswara Rao 1937
Held, that, gross negligence in former suit doesnt amount to fraud or
collusion and thus acts as bar to subsequent suit.

Public Interest Litigation:


The concept of PIL was an innovation of Judicial Activism of Indian Supreme
Court, and it is general rule f PIL that procedural laws are not fully applicable to
them. In case of Res Judicata , it is applicable only when the former suit was
bonafide in nature, further more it will not act as a shield in cases where public
good is threatened or questioned.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra V State of Uttar Pardesh:
S.C observed that the writ petition before them was not a inter part y
dispute and the controversy in it was whether mining was to be allowed or not. Thus
it was a matter that decided the social safety and providing hazardous free
environment. It observed that in matter s of grave public importance Res Judicata
can not be used as ashield.

Ramdas Nayak V Union of India


Court observed that, in cases of repitative litigations coming under the grab
of PIl, it was high time to put an end to it, invoking Res Judicta.
Applications of Rs Judicata:
1)

Can be invoked in subsequent stage of same

proceedings.
Y.B.Patil V Y.L.Patil:
held once an order made in course of
proceedings becomes final, it would be binding upon the parties at subsequent
stage of the same proceedings.

2)Can apply against Co-Defendants.


Mahaboob Sahab V Syed Ismail: held if the following four conditions
are satisfied Res
Judicata will apply
a)

There must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned.

b)
It must be necessary to decided such conflicts, in order to give relief to the
plaintiff.
c)

The questions between the defendants to be finally decided.

d)

Co-defendants to be necessary and proper parties to the suit

3) Can apply between Co-Plaintiffs


Ahamed V Syed Meharban:
satisfied Res Judicata will apply
a)

held if the following four conditions are

There must be a conflict of interest between the co-plaintiffs.

b)
It must be necessary to decided such conflicts, in order to give relief to the
plaintiff.
c)

The questions between the plaintiffs to be finally decided.

Non Application of Res Judicata


1)

Habeas Corpus Petitions

Sunil Dutt V Union of India : Held that habeas corpus, filed under fresh grounds and
changed circumstances will not be barred by a previous such petition.
2)

Dismissal of Writ Petition In Limine

Pujaril Bal V Madan Gopal : Held Res Judicata not applicable when dismissed in
limine
( without speaking orders) or on grounds of laches or availability of alternate
remedies.
3)
Matter collaterally and incidentally in issue doesnt operate as Res Judicata
Sayed Mhd V Musa Ummer
4)

Res Judicata not applicable to IT Proceedings or fixing of fair rent proceedings

Вам также может понравиться