RES SUB-JUDICE, RES JUDICATA AND INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT
5.1 Res Sub-Judice
5.2 Essentials of Res Sub-Judice
5.2.1 There must be two pending suits
5.2.2 The two suits should be in India or Courts outside India established under the authority of Central Government
5.2.3 The parties must be same in both the suits or claiming under them or litigating under the same title
5.2.4 The matter in issue in the previous suit is directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit
5.3 Non-applicability of section 10
5.4 Whether Stay of suit is possible under inherent powers of the Court
5.5 Res Judicata
5.5.1 Two suits
5.5.2 Same parties: The parties must be same in both the suits or claiming under them or litigating under the same title
5.5.3 Matter in issue in both the suits must be directly and substantially the same i. Constructive Res Judicata
5.5.4 The earlier Court should have been competent to try the subsequent suit i Court of limited jurisdiction
5.5.5 The suits/issues must have been heard and finally decided by the Court
5.6 Does ex parte decision amount to Res Judicata
5.7 Explanation V
© All rights reserved
Price : ` 695
Second Edition : October 2025
Published by :
Taxmann Publications (P.) Ltd.
Sales & Marketing :
59/32, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110 005 India
Phone : +91-11-45562222
Website : www.taxmann.com
E-mail : sales@taxmann.com
Regd. Office :
21/35, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110 026 India
Printed at :
Tan Prints (India) Pvt. Ltd.
44 Km. Mile Stone, National Highway, Rohtak Road Village Rohad, Distt. Jhajjar (Haryana) India
E-mail : sales@tanprints.com
Disclaimer
Every effort has been made to avoid errors or omissions in this publication. In spite of this, errors may creep in. Any mistake, error or discrepancy noted may be brought to our notice which shall be taken care of in the next edition. It is notified that neither the publisher nor the author or seller will be responsible for any damage or loss of action to any one, of any kind, in any manner, therefrom. It is suggested that to avoid any doubt the reader should cross-check all the facts, law and contents of the publication with original Government publication or notifications.
No part of this book may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means [graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information retrieval systems] or reproduced on any disc, tape, perforated media or other information storage device, etc., without the written permission of the publishers. Breach of this condition is liable for legal action.
For binding mistake, misprints or for missing pages, etc., the publisher’s liability is limited to replacement within seven days of purchase by similar edition. All expenses in this connection are to be borne by the purchaser. All disputes are subject to Delhi jurisdiction only.
2.1 “Code” includes rules [S. 2(1)] 5
2.2 Decree [S. 2(2)] 5
2.2.1 There must have been an adjudication 5
2.2.2 The adjudication must have been in a suit
2.2.3 The adjudication must have determined the rights of the parties in respect of, or any of the matters in controversy
2.2.4
2.2.5 Resulting in a formal expression of the adjudication
2.3 Decree holder [S. 2(3)]
2.4 District [S. 2(4)]
2.5 Foreign Court [S. 2(5)] 9
2.6 Foreign Judgment [S. 2(6)] 9
2.7 Government Pleader [S. 2(7)]
2.8 Hight Court [S. 2(7A)]
FOREIGN JUDGMENT
3.2.1 Where the judgment has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction
3.2.2 Where it has not been given on the merits of the case
3.2.3 Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or where it refuses to recognize the law of India wherever applicable
3.2.4 Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained was opposed to natural justice
3.2.5 Where it has been obtained by fraud 22
3.2.6 Where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law inforce in India
3.3 Submitting to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court
3.4
3.5
JURISDICTION
5.2
5.2.1 There must be two pending suits
5.2.2 The two suits should be in India or Courts outside India established under the authority of Central Government
5.2.3 The parties must be same in both the suits or claiming under them or litigating under the same title
5.2.4 The matter in issue in the previous suit is directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.5.1
5.5.2 Same parties: The parties must be same in both the suits or claiming under them or litigating under the same title
5.5.3 Matter in issue in both the suits must be directly and substantially the same
5.5.4 The earlier court should have been competent to try the subsequent suit
5.5.5
5.6
5.9 Application of Res judicata to writ proceedings and applications in a pending suit
5.10 Res judicata between Co-Plaintiff and Co-Defendants
5.11 Difference between Res Judicata and Estoppel
5.12 Res Judicata and Order II Rule 2 of CPC
5.13 Res Judicata when not applicable
5.14 Question of Res Judicata cannot be decided as a preliminary issue
5.15 Restitution (Section 144)
5.16 Caveat (Section 148A)
5.17 Enlargement of time (Section 148)
5.18 Power to make up deficiency of Court fees (Section 149) 80
5.19 Transfer of business (Section 150) 83
5.20 Saving of inherent powers of the Court (Section 151) 83
5.21 Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders (Section 152) 87
5.22 General power to amend (Section 153) 89
5.23 Power to amend decree or order where appeal is summarily dismissed (Section 153A) 89
5.24 Place of trial to be deemed to be open Court (Section 153B) 90
INTEREST & COSTS
6.1 Meaning of ‘interest’ 93
6.2 Interest prior to the filing of the suit 95
6.3 Interest during the pendency of litigation 96
6.4 Interest from the date of the passing of the decree till the realization 96
6.5 Costs
6.5.1 General
6.5.2 Miscellaneous
6.5.3 Compensatory cost for false and vexatious claim or defense
6.5.4
7.1 Parties to suit
7.2 Necessary and proper parties
7.3 Joinder of plaintiffs
7.4 Joinder of defendants
7.5 Misjoinder of parties/Non-joinder
7.6 Addition/deletion of parties 109
7.7 Representative suit 112
7.7.1
7.7.2
7.7.3 Permission of the Court
7.8 Representative suit and Res Judicata
7.9 Order II Rule 2
7.10 Order II Rule 2 when not applicable
7.11 Order II Rule 2 and Res Judicata
7.12 Order II Rule 3
7.13
7.14
7.15
PLEADINGS
8.1 Pleadings
8.2
8.3 Rules of pleadings
8.3.1 Pleadings should contain facts and not law
8.3.2 Facts and not evidence
8.3.3 Facts stated should be material facts
8.3.4 Facts should be in concise form
8.4 General principles of pleadings
8.4.1 Presumptions of law need not be pleaded
8.4.2 Alternative and inconsistent pleas
8.4.3 Pleadings to be interpreted liberally
8.5 Verification of pleadings
8.6 Striking off pleadings
8.7 Inherent power to strike off defence
8.8 Amendment of pleadings
8.9. Principles governing amendment of pleadings
8.10 Amendment in plaint/written statement: Difference
PLAINT AND WRITTEN STATEMENT
9.1 Plaint
9.2 What should a plaint contain?
9.3 Events post filing of suit
9.4 Filing of documents along with plaint
9.5 Presentation of plaint
9.6 Return of Plaint
9.7 Rejection of plaint
9.8 Application under Order VII Rule 11 should be decided prior to filing of WS
9.9 Contents of the plaint to be seen
9.10
9.11
9.14
9.15
9.16
9.17
9.18 Rules of
9.19
9.20
9.21 Counter-claim
9.23 Subsequent pleadings
9.24 Consequences of non-filing of written statement
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES AND CONSEQUENCE OF NON-APPEARANCE
10.1 Scope of Order IX
10.2 Dismissal of the suit on account of failure on the part of the plaintiff
10.3 Dismissal of the suit where both the parties do not appear
10.4 Dismissal of suit when plaintiff does not appear 213
10.5 Procedure when defendant does not appear for reasons of non-service of summons
10.6 Procedure when defendant does not appear for reasons despite service of summons
HEARING
& DISPOSAL, FRAMING OF ISSUES AND TRIAL
11.1 Examination of parties: Order X
11.2 Parties not an issue (Order XV)
11.3 Trial (Order XVI)
11.4 Summoning and attendance of witnesses
11.5 Failure to comply
11.6 Attendance of witnesses confined or detained in prison (Order XVIA)
11.7 Adjournments
11.8 Hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses (Order XVIII)
11.9 Affidavits (Order XIX)
11.10 Judgment (Order XX)
11.11 Decree (Order XX)
11.12 Kinds of decree (Order XX)
12.1 Discovery, inspection and production of documents: Order XI
12.2 Production, impounding and return of documents: Order XIII
ADMISSIONS
EXECUTION
15
DEATH, MARRIAGE AND INSOLVENCY OF PARTIES
15.1
16
WITHDRAWAL
17
SECURITY FOR COSTS AND PAYMENT INTO COURT
INTERIM ORDERS
18.1
18.2 Appointment of commissions under Order
18.2.4
18.2.5
18.2.6 Commission issued at the instance of foreign tribunals
18.2.7
18.2.8
18.2.9
18.3
18.3.1
18.4
18.4.1
18.5
SPECIAL SUITS
19.1 Suits by or against Government
19.2 Suits by aliens: Section 83
19.3 Suits by or against foreign rulers, ambassadors and envoys: Sections 84-87A 391
19.4 Suits by or against rulers of former Indian States: Section 87B
19.5 Suits by or against Military or Naval Men or Airmen: Order XXXVIII
19.6 Suits by or against corporations: Order XXIX
19.7 Suits by or against firms and persons carrying on business in names other than their own: Order XXX
19.8 Suits by or against trustees, executors or administrators: Order XXXI
19.9 Public nuisance and other wrongful acts affecting the public
19.10 Suits relating to Public Trusts: Section 92
19.11 Suits concerning family matters: Order XXXIIA
19.12 Friendly suits section 90: Order XXXVI
19.13 Suits relating to constitutional validity of statutory instruments: Order XXVIIA
19.14 Interpleader suit: Section 88, Order XXXV
19.15 Suits by or against minor and persons of unsound mind: Order XXXII
19.16 Suits based on mortgage: Order XXXIV
19.17 Suits by indigent persons: Order XXXIII
19.18
FIRST APPEAL AGAINST DECREE
CONTENTS
21.1.5 Exercise of power under Article 227 of Constitution of India 478
21.1.6 Additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 in second appeal 478
21.1.7 Conclusion 478
21.2 Appeals to Supreme Court 479
21.2.1 Procedure for appeal to Supreme Court 480
21.2.2 Execution not affected 480
21.2.3 Appeal under the Constitution 481
21.2.4 Section 100A 481
21.3 Appeals from Orders 482
21.4 Order XVIII and letter patent appeal 484
21.5 Appeal by indigent persons 486
21.6 Procedure for appeal by indigent person 487
REFERENCE, REVISION AND REVIEW
22.1 Reference
22.2 Revision
22.3 Review of Judgment: Section 114 and Order XLVII 498
CHAPTER
RES SUB-JUDICE, RES JUDICATA AND INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT
SYNOPSIS
5.1 Res Sub-Judice
5.2 Essentials of Res Sub-Judice
5.2.1 There must be two pending suits
5.2.2 The two suits should be in India or Courts outside India established under the authority of Central Government
5.2.3 The parties must be same in both the suits or claiming under them or litigating under the same title
5.2.4 The matter in issue in the previous suit is directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit
5.3 Non-applicability of section 10
5.4 Whether Stay of suit is possible under inherent powers of the Court
5.5 Res Judicata
5.5.1 Two suits
5.5.2 Same parties: The parties must be same in both the suits or claiming under them or litigating under the same title
5.5.3 Matter in issue in both the suits must be directly and substantially the same
i. Constructive Res Judicata
5.5.4 The earlier Court should have been competent to try the subsequent suit
i. Court of limited jurisdiction
5.5.5 The suits/issues must have been heard and finally decided by the Court
5.6 Does ex parte decision amount to Res Judicata
5.7 Explanation V
RES SUB-JUDICE, RES JUDICATA AND INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT 51
5.8 Explanation VII
5.9 Application of res judicata to writ proceedings and applications in a pending suit
5.10 Res judicata between Co-Plaintiffs and co-defendants
5.11 Difference between res judicata and estoppel
5.12 Res Judicata and Order II Rule 2 of CPC
5.13 Res Judicata when not applicable
5.14 Question of res judicata cannot be decided as a preliminary issue
5.15 Restitution (Section 144)
5.16 Caveat (Section 148A)
5.17 Enlargement of time (Section 148)
5.18 Power to make up deficiency of court fees (Section 149)
5.19 Transfer of business (Section 150)
5.20 Saving of inherent powers of the Court (Section 151)
5.21 Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders (Section 152)
5.22 General power to amend (Section 153)
5.23 Power to amend decree or order where appeal is summarily dismissed (Section 153A)
5.24 Place of trial to be deemed to be open Court (Section 153B) Summary
5.1 RES SUB-JUDICE
Section 10 provides for the rule of res sub-judice i.e. stay of the suit. The primary object of this section is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from entertaining and adjudicating on parallel litigation filed for the same cause of action, for the same subject matter and for the same relief1. Section 10 does not bar the institution of the subsequent suit it only bars the trial. The use of negative expression in Section 10, i.e. “no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit” makes the provision mandatory and the Court in which the subsequent suit has been filed is prohibited from proceeding with the trial of that suit if the conditions laid down in Section 10 of the Code are satisfied.
Section 10, inter alia mandates that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue between the parties, 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. It has been incorporated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings on issues
1. Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-op Marketing Federation Limited AIR 1998 SC 1952; Aspi Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor AIR 2013 SC 1712
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
which are directly and substantially in issue in the previously filed suit2. Thus the basic purpose of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to prevent the courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of same cause of action, same subject matter and same relief. The aim of this Section to avoid the possibility of contradictory verdicts by two Courts in respect of the same relief and to protect the defendant from multiplicity of proceedings3. However, this Rule of procedure is held not affecting the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and deal with the latter suit and does not create a bar to the institution of the suit. It only mandates the Courts to not proceed with the “trial” of the suit but that does not mean that the subsequent suit cannot be instituted or that the Courts cannot deal with the subsequent suit any more or for any other purpose4.
Section 10 of the CPC is a somewhat drastic provision, inasmuch as it brings the trial in the later suit to a complete halt. It eviscerates, therefore, in a manner of speaking, the right of the litigant to expeditious trial. The corridors of the court not being the most habitable of places, where one would choose to linger long, Section 10 is required to be construed strictly.5 .
A mere presentation of the memo of appeal before the High Court without the same being admitted, would not attract Section 10 CPC6
The objective behind Section 10 in CPC can be deduced as under:-
(i) To prevent parallel litigation between the same parties on the same issue/subject matter.
(ii) To reduce the burden on the courts as also to prevent wastage of time of the Courts.
(iii) To avoid contradictory decisions on the same issue/subject matter.
(iv) To protect the rights of other party7.
The words “shall not proceed in any suit” in Section 10 CPC do not apply to the simultaneous hearing of a later and an earlier suit, after consolidation of the two, if the matter in issue in both is directly and substantially the same. The power to consolidate the suits is the inherent power of the Court. Section 10 was not intended to take away the inherent power of the Court to consolidate different suit between the parties in which the matter in issue is substantially
2. ACME Papers Ltd. v. Chintaman Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2024 INSC 248; Vandna Singh v. Addl. District Judge, Faizabad, (2021) ILR 12 All 717; Arumugam v. Neelavathy MANU/TN/6021/2020
3. Union of India, Ministry of Railways v. Rashmi Metaliks Limited. MANU/WB/1326/2022; Veeraju V. v. Govind Pandurang Sinai Batkully MANU/MH/4601/2023
4. Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., (1998) 5 SCC 69; State of Meghalaya v. Union of India 2023 INSC 522; Som Nath Kalra v. Deepak Kalra 2023: DHC: 5767
5. Amita Vashisht v. Tarun Vedi, 2022: DHC: 3718
6. Rooprani Jain v. Deep Chand Jain MANU/UP/1721/2018
7. Vandna Singh v. Addl. District Judge, Faizabad (2021) ILR 12 All. 717
RES SUB-JUDICE, RES JUDICATA AND INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT 53
the same, in the interest of justice and in appropriate cases. There is no conflict in the principle and purpose underlying Section 10 and the inherent power of the Court to consolidate different suits in appropriate cases. Both are meant to prevent multiplicity of litigation between the same parties. Any interpretation of Sec. 10 which takes away the power of the Court to consolidate suits would hinder the policy and purpose of Section 10 itself8. Needless to say, when both the suits are jointly tried, issues are accordingly framed and common judgments are delivered, then there is no possibility of conflicting judgment and both parties will not be prejudiced in any manner9
For the application of Section 10, what is required to be considered is as to whether the first suit is instituted in the Court of competent jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequently instituted suit10-11. It is required that the Court in which the previous suit is pending is competent to grant the relief claimed12. Therefore, Allahabad High Court in a matter where one relief was prayed under Specific Relief Act and another under Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, both of which are entirely different jurisdiction refused to stay the proceedings13.
If all the above conditions are fulfilled, then the Court should stay the subsequent suit pending before it. Even if all the above conditions are not fulfilled the Court can exercise its inherent power to stay the trial of a suit in appropriate cases. Mere filing of an application under section 10 CPC does not in any manner put an embargo on the power of the court to examine the merits of the matter. The section enacts merely a rule of procedure and a decree passed in contravention thereof is not a nullity14. Though section 10 is said to be mandatory, however, if the Court finds the same to have been invoked with ulterior motives, the Court is entitled to see through the game and grant the relief and dismiss the application15. Hence, Section 10 cannot be applied pedantically, in all situations, even when application thereof would result in miscarriage of justice16
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment has held that it cannot be gainsaid that an application under section 10, by its very nature requires immediate consideration, before any other step in the suit. It however cautioned that the trial court should have simultaneously taken up the application under section
8. Kamla Kapoor v. Neelam Kapoor 2023 AHC 222252; Parigabai v. Dhondiram Bhimaji Borude MANU/MH/0671/2021
9. Saravanan v. Thirumurugan MANU/TN/4811/2021
10-11. Fakruddin Gulamhussein Vora v. Manilal Ishwarlal Thakkar 2008(0) AIJEL-HC 220416; Rahul Subhash Bothra v. Karjala Ashalata Naidu MANU/MH/0917/2020
12. Aspi Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor, (2013) 4 SCC 333; Mohammed Yunus v. Rahees Ahmed MANU/UP/0757/2018
13. Kasheri Nandan Agrawal v. Indu Bajpayee (2023) ILR 1 All 1316
14. Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna AIR 2004 SC 3504
15. Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v. Natco Pharma 2020 DHC 465
16. Cadbury UK Limited v. Lotte India Corporation Ltd. 2019: DHC: 3716
10 of CPC, particularly when the trial court considered the step of filing the written statement to be of importance in view of time limit and consequences stated in the statute17. It is pertinent to note that the question whether section 10 is applicable essentially rests on the pleadings of the parties in both the suits. In order to adjudicate the application under section 10, the Court ought to wait till the written statement was filed and issues are framed.18
The fundamental test for the applicability of rule of Res Sub Judice is whether a decision in the previously instituted suit would operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit19. The test for applicability of Section 10 of the Code is whether on a final decision being reached in the previously instituted suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit20. The concept of res judicata is discussed in the later part of this Chapter.
It is the later suit which is to be stayed and not the former suit. Therefore, date of institution of the suit is important to determine which of the two is subsequent and liable to be stayed21
One major condition which must be fulfilled is that the suit, the trial of which is sought to be stayed in terms of Section 10 of CPC must be in respect of the entire cause of action which is the subject matter of the suit instituted prior in time, coupled with the fact that subsequently instituted suit must also have the jurisdiction to grant the remedy/relief which has been claimed in the suit instituted prior in time. Where the two suits are pending before the courts of two separate jurisdiction relating to two separate cause of actions, where the subject matter also relates to two separate type of properties merely because one issue is common and would have the material bearing would not attract the provisions of Section 10 of the C.P.C.22 There are certain conditions which are required to be fulfilled before a suit can be stayed under section 10:
5.2 ESSENTIALS OF RES SUB-JUDICE
I. There must be two pending suits
These two suits should be pending in the courts in India or Courts established under the authority of Central Government; or in any other Court in India (whether superior or inferior or coordinate); or in any Court beyond limits of India established or continued by Central Government; or before Supreme Court, and such Court is a Court of jurisdiction competent to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit23.
17. Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited 2022 INSC 180
18. A.M. Yousaf v. Kerala Naduvathul Mujahideen, Mujahid Centre MANU/KE/3470/2019
19. National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. C. Parmeshwara AIR 2005 SC 242
20. Aspi Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor AIR 2013 SC 1712; Rajendra Prasad v. Komal Devi MANU/UP/2758/2018
21. Standard Chartered Bank v. India Glycols Ltd. MANU/DE/1727/2014
22. Hansraj Yadav v. Addl. Commissioner, Ayodhya MANU/UP/3767/2022; Parminder Gujral v. Kiranjit Gujral, 2023: DHC: 5025
23. Laxmi Kant v. Ganga Devi MANU/UP/2138/2018
II. The parties to the suits must be the same or they must be litigating through their representatives or litigating under the same title;
III. The matter in issue in the previous suit is directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit.
5.2.1 There must be two pending suits
For the application of this section there must be two suits, one which is prior in time than the other and both must be pending. If any of the suit is decided, section 10 will not have application and instead it is section 11 which may apply. It is the latter suit which is required to be stayed therefore to determine which of the two suit is later in time, it is the date of institution of suit which is of considerable importance under Section 10. The subsequent Court, on realizing that all the essentials of this section exist, will stay the suit pending in its court. Thus, an application under Section 10 is to be filed before the subsequent Court stating the requirements of Section 10 are fulfilled and matter ought to be stayed. It is only the subsequent Court which can stay its own proceedings under Section 10.
If both the suits are filed in the same Court on the same day then the suit which bears the later suit number would be considered the subsequent suit. Where however, the suits are filed in the different courts but on the same day, evidence may be led to establish which of the two is a later suit.
5.2.2 The two suits should be in India or Courts outside India established under the authority of Central Government
The second requirement under section 10 for staying of suit is that both the suits must be pending in Courts in India i.e. to say if one of the suits is pending in a foreign court, section 10 will not have application.
The Court may however exercise its inherent power stay the proceeding even if the previous suit is instituted in a foreign Court. The Calcutta HC in a matter stayed the proceedings before an Indian Court, in exercise of its inherent power, when the previous suit was pending before Court in Bangladesh. The Court relied on explanation to section 10 which states that if the previously instituted suit is filed in a foreign court then Indian Courts are not precluded from proceeding with the subsequent suit24
5.2.3 The parties must be same in both the suits or claiming under them or litigating under the same title
Parties in both the suits must be the same or claiming under them or litigating under the same title. “Same parties” as used in Section 10 of CPC means the parties between whom the matter substantially in issue has arisen and has to be decided. It has been held that complete identity of the parties is not required.
24. Dalgreen Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. Shaikh Asadur Rahaman MANU/WB/1386/2018
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
In order to sustain the plea of res-judice, it is not necessary that all the parties to the two litigations must be common. All that is necessary is that the issue should be between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim25. It can be explained by an illustration.
ILLUSTRATION 1
A files a suit against B filed in the year 2000. In the year 2003 C, as a legal heir of A, files a suit against B. C has not filed the subsequent suit in his personal capacity but as the legal heir of A. Therefore, the parties can be said to be the same.
ILLUSTRATION 2
A is the landlord of the property and B is the tenant. A files an eviction petition against B, whilst the eviction petition is pending A sells this property to C. C institutes another eviction petition against B. The subsequent eviction petition filed by C is to be stayed as C is claiming through A.
5.2.4 The matter in issue in the previous suit is directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit
Section 10 would apply only if the matter in issue in both the suits is identical and it is between the same parties, or between the parties to whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title26. The matter ‘directly and substantially’ in issue means that the matter in dispute between both the parties in both the suits is the same. ‘Matter in issue’ is that matter on which the judgment would have a clear bearing that is to say if the judgment does not affect a particular issue then that is not the ‘matter in issue’. ‘Matter in issue’ may be an issue of fact; an issue of law or one of mixed fact and law. An issue of fact or an issue of mixed fact and law decided by a competent court is finally decided between the parties and cannot be reopened between them in another proceeding. The expression “the matter in issue” has reference to the entire subject matter in controversy between the parties27. What is required is the matter in issue in the earlier suit, is also “directly and substantially”, an issue in the succeeding suit28. Further, the subject matter of the two suits must be identical. Identity of subject matter and identity of relief are, therefore, the inescapable sine qua non for Section 10 to apply. The mere fact that the outcome of one suit may have an effect on the outcome of the other is insufficient to invoke the said provision. It cannot be forgotten that what is required by Section 10, even as per the statute, is that the matter in issue in the suit later instituted is also directly and substantially
25. Saroja v. Chinnusamy (2007)8 SCC 329
26. Ashwani Khatri v. Neelam Khatri MANU/UP/3189/2018
27. Shyam Sel & Power Limited v. Bahubali Promoters Private Limited MANU/WB/0782/2019
28. Haroon Ebrahim v. Ajit Sukhija MANU/MH/3189/2017; Amrita Bazar Patrika Ltd. v. Jayanta Sengupta MANU/WB/1385/2009
RES SUB-JUDICE, RES JUDICATA AND INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT 57
in issue” in the earlier instituted suit. The Court cannot be unmindful of the use of the word “and” between “directly” and “substantially29
The word “directly and substantially in issue” are used in contradistinction to words “incidentally or collaterally in issue”30. If the issue was “necessary” to be decided for adjudicating on the principal issue and was decided, it would be “directly and substantially in issue”. A collateral or incidental issue is one that is incidental to a direct and substantive issue31. In other words, when the question raised in the subsequent proceedings have no bearing on the findings made in the earlier proceedings, it cannot be said that the ‘matter in issue is directly and substantially’ the same between both the parties in the two suits. There must be identity of ‘matter in issue’ between the parties in the suit. It is not sufficient if only one of the issues is common if identity of issue is substantial, it is enough to stay the subsequent suit and it is not necessary that the relief claimed should also be the same32.
In a matter where one proceeding was for grant of letters of administration while the other was for cancellation of the Will, the Court declined to grant stay under Section 10 of CPC. It was held that in suit filed for cancellation of ‘Will’, only question up for consideration is, “whether ‘Will’ was actually executed or it was a forged and fictitious”; while in Testamentary Suit, other issues are also involved33 therefore section 10 shall have no application. Where the earlier suit is for injunction, but, the subsequent suit is for declaration, possession and for damage, the matter in issue is not directly and substantially not in issue in the previously instituted suit and that the decision of the earlier suit shall not operate as res judicata to the subsequent suit34
ILLUSTRATION
A files eviction petition against B on the ground of non-payment of rent. B defends the petition stating that A is not the owner of the suit premises. For succeeding in the case pertaining to non-payment of rent, the issue of ownership is not relevant and the requirement of the case, amongst other things, is the existence of relationship of landlord-tenant. Thus, the issue of A’s ownership of the property is ‘collaterally and incidentally’ in issue and even though he may not be the owner, the factum of his being the landlord is a matter which is ‘directly and substantially’ in issue.
Where all the above essentials of Res Sub-Judice are fulfilled, it is the duty of the Court to stay the trial of a suit. The word ‘trial’ would mean the stage where issues are framed and evidence is led. Thus, when the pleadings are complete,
29. Ruchika Pugliani v. Aasna Digin 2022: DHC: 4537
30. Madhusri Konar v. New Central Book Agency Pvt. Limited MANU/WB/1082/2022; Rajesh Narayan. v. Sneha Bhattacharya (Nee Chatterjee) AIR 2021 Cal 340
31. Sajjad Anashin Sayed v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer AIR 2000 SC 1238
32. Challapathi v. Swadeshi Sugar AIR 1983 Cal 119
33. Laxmi Kant v. Ganga Devi MANU/UP/2138/2018
34. Victor v. V.S. Sankar Raju MANU/TN/4280/2023
issues have been framed, it is at that time the Court would decide as to the applicability of Section 10 in a suit. Overlapping is insufficient; what is required is identity35.
In case the subsequent Court is of the opinion that Section 10 does not apply the trial would continue in both the suits. The settled principle of law is that it is not necessary that all the questions or issues that arise should be common to both actions, before a joint trial can be ordered. It will be sufficient if some of the issues are common and some of the evidence to be led in is also common, especially when the two actions arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions36
There can be no doubt to the legal proposition that whenever there is a fresh cause of action, a fresh suit would lie. However, the same has to be within the four corners of law. The plea of continuing cause of action cannot be stretched to an impermissible limit so as to permit multiple suits between the same parties relating to the same trademarks in different fora. This would constitute clear forum shopping37
5.3 NON-APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 10
The language of Section 10 suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in the civil Court and it cannot apply to proceedings of another nature instituted under any other statute38. The petition filed before the Insolvency Court is not a lis between the parties but it is a lis in rem. Even though debt of the petitioner may have been mentioned in the said proceedings it does not become a lis between the respondent and the petitioner and the issues involved in the insolvency proceedings and the issue involved in the present proceedings are completely different and as such the embargo of Section 10 of CPC also does not apply39 Probate proceedings are altogether different to proceedings before the Civil Court. Hence, pendency of a probate case is not a ground to stay the suit under Section 10 of CPC40. Ideally, a probate petition and the partition suit between the same parties ought to be heard and adjudicated together, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting findings/decisions. Considering
35. National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences (2005) 2 SCC 256; Aspi Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor (2013) 4 SCC 333; Hnunpuii v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 2022: DHC: 3344
36. State Bank of India v. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. 2006 INSC 690; Haripada Santra v. Madan Santra MANU/WB/0204/2022
37. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Hetero Healthcare Ltd. 2022: DHC: 1212
38. National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara (2005) 2 SCC 256; Ashwani Khatri v. Neelam Khatri MANU/UP/3189/2018; Raosaheb v. The Divisional Joint Registrar MANU/MH/1797/2022
39. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. Naveen Kachru proprietor of M/S. South Delhi Motorcycle 2022: DHC: 1238
40. Ravi Khanna v. Pankaj Khanna 2008 SCC OnLine Del 979 and Praveen Chandra v. Aparajita, MANU/DE/3549/2019
RES SUB-JUDICE, RES JUDICATA AND INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT 59
both the proceedings were going on in different towns, for a long time, court dismissed the application under Section 10. It was held if the Trial Court decides that the partition suit is liable to be dismissed, then no further orders would be required to be passed. However, if the suit is decreed, it is directed that the said decree would come into effect after the decision of the probate petition41
The Company Law Board is neither a Court nor the proceedings before it a suit. The Company Law Board does not have concurrent jurisdiction with that of the “Court’, under the CPC, rather their jurisdiction is exclusive of each other42. The Co-operative court adjudicating a dispute under Section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is not a court or civil court; similarly, Registrar of Co-operative Societies or his delegatee under Section 101 is also not a court or a civil court. Certainly, these two authorities are not ‘courts’ of concurrent jurisdiction. Therefore, Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code would have no application43 A Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is not a Court but is a tribunal hence provisions of Section 10 shall not be attracted44
5.4 WHETHER STAY OF SUIT IS POSSIBLE UNDER INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT
This section is not exhaustive and the Court can, in appropriate cases stay the subsequent suit under its inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC. The Court may also in appropriate cases consolidate both the suits together to be heard by one of the Courts provided the Court is competent to deal with the suit. Furthermore, it is clear that even if some issues in the subsequent suit overlap with a previously instituted suit, then also the Court is not bound to stay the trial of those particular issues in the subsequent suit because the language of Section 10 is very clear, as it deals with stay of suits and not stay of issues. But in a fit case, in peculiar facts and circumstances, the Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code to stay the trial of such issues/suit so as to prevent multiplicity of proceedings45.
It cannot also be overlooked that when the CPC has specific provisions to deal with specific situations such as Section 10 for stay of a subsequent suit, recourse to inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC are uncalled for 46
5.5 RES JUDICATA
When a matter has been decided by a competent Court between the same parties relating to the same matter in issue in a suit, the same cannot be re-agitated
41. Praveer Chandra v. Aprajita 2019: DHC: 5622
42. Dr. Bais Surgical & Medical Institute Private Limited v. Dhananjay MANU/MH/2802/2021
43. Raj Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanagar Co-op. Bank Ltd. MANU/MH/0019/2020
44. Dilip Kundu v. Mira Devi Agarwal, MANU/WB/2081/2022; Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo (2011) 8 SCC 539
45. H.QR.P. Limited v. M.T.I. Limited 2022: DHC: 5613
46. Dharam Dev v. Ashok Kumar 2021: DHC: 1743
