RES SUB-JUDICE

Section 10 deals with the Res Sub-Judice, which is represented as STAY OF SUITE, this section
provides that court shall not proceed with the trail of suite brought before it
a) The matter in issue is was directly and substantially an issue in previously instituted suite
between the same parties
b) The matter is pending for adjudication in the same or another part of India, this rule applies
to appeals and revisions.
Exception to this rule is that it does not apply to INSTITUTION OF SUITE; it also does not preclude a
court from passing interim orders, grant of injunction or stay, appointment of receiver.
OBJECT
1. The main concept of this provision to prevent concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously
entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect to same cause of action
, subject matter or relief avoiding two possible contradictory verdicts.
2. It protects from multiplicity of proceedings
3. It aims to avert inconvenience to the parties
4. This section bars trail of suite, but does not bar institution of suite, therefore suite cannot be
dismissed but it is required to be stayed
CONDITIONS
For application of this section the following conditions are required to be full filled
1. There must e 2 suites one previously instituted and other subsequently
2. The subject matter in this 2 suites is same and directly in issue
3. Both must be between the same parties
4. The suite must be pending in same court or any other court established in India
5. The court in which the previous suite was instituted shall have jurisdiction to grant relief
claimed
6. The parties must e litigating under the same title
7. On compliance to above condition court is barred under section 10 to proceed in the mater
and no discretion is left to the court, and this staing of proceedings can be made at any
stage.
MANDATORY NATURE
The words employed in this section are definite and does not suffer from ambiguity, when conditions
in this section are satisfied court has to stay the proceedings
CONTRAVENTION TO THE SECTION
The decree passed in contravention to this section is not an nullity and cannot be disregarded in
execution proceedings
The procedure in this section is pure and simple and can be waived by the party, and if they waived
this right and ask the court to proceed with subsequent suite later they cannot challenge the
proceedings.


POWER OF COURT
The court can pass the interim orders and the stay of suite does not take away the right of court such
as Attachment before Judgment, temporary injunction, appointment of receiver, amendment of
plaint or written statements.
CASE LAW
Honorable Supreme Court in case of NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH & NEURO SCIENCES
Vs C PARMESHWARA
HELD: That object of court is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from trying same parallel
suites between same parties and matter in issue, the fundamental test to determine the applicability
of this provision was finality of previous suite, were this decision will operate as RESJUDICATE.

RES JUDICATE
Section 11 defines the concept of Res Judicate it is rule of CONCLUSIVENESS, OF JUDGMENT it is
based on concept ONE SUITE AND ONE DECISION is enough for single dispute.
OBJECT
1. No man should be vexed twice for same cause
2. In interest of state there should be an end to a litigation
3. Judicial decision must be accepted as correct
The Leading case of this doctrine is DUCHESS OF KINGSTONE CASE were Sir Willimans made
observation firstly on Judgment of Court of concurrent Jurisdiction, secondly on Judgment of Court
on Exclusive Jurisdiction
NATURE AND SCOPE
This doctrine is largely in public interest which requires that all the litigations must, sooner or later
shall come to an end.
The principal of equity, justice and good conscience has its reflection, were person succeeding
litigation shall not be harassed and multiplicity of proceedings same issue shall be stopped.
This code is in statutory form in form of public policy
It embodies the principal of conclusiveness and operates as bar to try the same issue once again and
prevent vexatious litigations.
This doctorin is applicable to civil suites, execution proceedings, arbitration proceedings, taxation
matter, industrial educations, write petitions, administrative orders, criminal proceedings etc
INTERPRETATION OF SECTION -11
No Court shall try any suite or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been
directly or substantially an issue in former suite between same parties, or under the parties whom
they claim or litigating under same title in a competent court.
EXPLANATION I: The expression former suite denote to suite which has been decided.
EXPLANATION II: the competence of court shall be determined irrespective of right of appeal from
decision of court
EXPLANATION III: matter alleged in former suite had been denied by part or admitted by the other
party expressly or impliedly.
EXPLANATION IV: the matter which is ground of attack or defense in former suite is an issue in such
suite
EXPLANATION V: any decree claimed in the plaint, which is not granted will deemed to had been
refused for purpose of this section.
EXPLANATION VI: where persons litigate bonafide in respect to private right or public right, all such
persons for purpose of this section deemed to claim under the person so litigating.
EXPLANATION VII: provisions to this section shall apply to proceedings for the execution of decree.
EXPLANATION VIII: The issue heard and decided by court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide
such issue shall act as Res Judicate in subsequent suite, despite the fact that court of limited
jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suite.
RES JUDICATE RULE OF LAW
It is a universal application; this doctrine was interpreted by Supreme Court in case of DARYO Vs
STATE OF UP AIR 1961
FACT OF CASE: Petitioner filed a write petition in HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD under Article 226 of
constitution and they were dismissed.
Thereafter he filed a substantive petition Under ARTICLE 32 with Supreme Court of India for same
relief and same grounds
Here the respondents in the case raised the issue of Decision of ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and
dismissal of their petition as Matter been RES JUDICATE to petition Under Article 32.
HELD: Supreme Court held the contention and dismissed the petition speaking through the bench
Justice GAJENDRAGADKAR observed
The binding character of judgments pronounced by courts of competent Jurisdiction itself an
essential part of RULE OF LAW,
Court held that rule of Res Judicate applies to petition filed under Article 32 of constitution, if
petitioner has filed a case in HIGH COURT under ARTICLE 226, which is dismissed on merits such
decisions act as a bar to Petitions under ARTICLE 32.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RESJUDICATE RES SUBJUDICE
The RES JUDICATE applies to matter already adjucated and RES SUBJUDICE applies to matter
pending trail
RES JUDICATE Bars trail of suite or an issue which is concluded in former suite, RES SUBJUDICE bars
trial of suite which is pending in previously instituted suite.
OTHER NOTES
If the plaintiff withdraws the suite or abandons the same without the leave of court, he is barred for
instating the fresh suite.
The Res Judicate is really estopple of Judgment; here the rule of RESJUDICATE is based on public
policy and estopple as rule of equity
Section 300(1) CRPC 1973 declares that once person tried by court of competent Jurisdiction
convicted or acquitted of such offences cannot be tried again for same offence.
FOR ILLUSTRATIONS REFER PAGE : 83 OF CPC { CK TAKWANI)