INTRODUCTION-
The term Res sub judice is a Latin word which can be understood in pieces to get a clear meaning, so the word Res means litigation, lawsuit, or any matter in the court of law and the word sub-judice indicates its meaning as ‘under judgment’ which can be jointly interpreted as any suit or matter is pending in the court of law. And the basic reason behind the introduction of this maxim is to put the stay on the suits for which case is already in the proceeding.
And the existence of this maxim is important because it prohibits filing two or more cases on the same matter between the same parties.
VALIDITY OF SUIT FILED BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTY ON SAME MATTER-
If the same suit based on the same matter is filed by the representatives of the previous parties and not by the parties themselves then also it is not valid and falls under the ambit of res sub judice.
Illustration- (i) A and B has some property issues with each other for which A has filed the case against B in a court of Raipur, as his business was in that city, and after that B had also filed the case against A on the same matter in Chandigarh, so according to the principle of res sub judice it is not allowed to file the same case twice and because of that court is not going to entertain the case filed by B.
(ii) Similarly if in this case instead of B himself his representative like his employees had filed for the case against A then in that situation also the court was not going to entertain that and will declare stay for the same on the principles of res sub judice.
ESSENTIALS OF RES SUB JUDICE-
Section 10 merely lays down the procedure and does not vest any substantive rights in the parties. The four essential conditions for the application of this section are:
(1) That the matter in issue in the second suit is also directly and substantially in issue in the first suit;
(2) That the parties in the second suit are the same or parties under whom they or any of them claim to litigate under the same title;
(3) That the court in which the first suit is instituted is competent to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit.[1]
PROVISIONS DEALING IN SUPPORT OF MAXIM-
Section 10 relates to res sub judice, that is, a matter which is pending a judicial adjudication.[2]
Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code speaks about the effect of res sub judice.
Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as below:-
“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”[3]
The provision is well orchestrated with the solemn object to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits and to avoid conflicting.
Case Law-
In Sohal Engineering Works v. RustomJehangirVakil Mills Ltd. the High Court of Gujarat held thus: On a plain reading of the contents of Section 10 of the Code, it is crystal clear that the object of the provision is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from adjudicating upon parallel litigations between the same parties having the same matter in issue to avoid conflict of decisions. The policy of the law is that if the matter in issue in the two parallel suits is identical, in the interest of judicial comity the court in which the subsequently instituted suit is pending shall stay the proceedings and allow the previously instituted suit to proceed.[4]
APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 10 OF CPC-
It is a kind of exception that principles of res subjudice do not apply in public suits.[5]
Further, the provisions of Section 10 apply only to suits and not to other proceedings. This section, therefore, cannot apply where one of the two proceedings is not a suit.[6] Also, the language of section 10 suggests that it is preferable to a suit instituted in the civil court and it cannot apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute; National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences v. C. Parmeshwara, AIR 2005 SC 242.[7]
CONDITION WHEN RES JUDICATA ALSO CHANGED INTO RES SUB JUDICE–
The term res judicata indicates that the case had been heard and finally decided by the court but there are few situations when this res judicata may have chances to get changed with the maxim of res sub judice.
Law is well established that a decision liable to appeal may be ‘final’ within the meaning of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code until an appeal is preferred, but once the appeal is filed the decision loses its character of ‘finality’ and what was once res judicata again becomes res sub judice that is, the matter under judicial inquiry.[8]
For instance- “We consider that when the judgment of a Court of the first instance upon a particular issue is appealed against, that judgment ceases to be res judicata and becomes res sub judice.” [9]
Also, it gets held that until the limitation period for filing of an appeal is over, the res remains sub judice. After the limitation period is over, the res decided by the first Court would then become judicata[10]
In Nilvaru v. Nilvaru [ILR 6 Bom. 110.], “We consider that when the judgment of a Court of the first instance upon a particular issue is appealed against, that judgment ceases to be res judicata and becomes res subjudice.” [11]
EFFECT OF SECTION 10 ON THE DISPUTES-
An order staying a suit under Section 10 of the Code can be said to affect even the actual dispute between the parties on the merits because it compels the plaintiff to decide the other court.
In, Beaumont, C. J., observed as follows: — Court on the questions in controversy, however, they may be decided, instead of the decision of the Court of his choice which might well have been different.[12]
In layman’s word it doesn’t allows plaintiff to get his case filed according to him and at his place where he wants it to be filed which also, sometimes shows the possibility that may be plaintiff will not get his judgment according to his choice.
WHEN RES SUD JUDICE LOSES ITS VALIDITY-
If any of the essential elements are missing then that suit will not fall under the criteria of res sub judice, for example, if the same suit is filed but by the different parties then it will be considered as the valid suit and court has no power to put a stay on the same.
Also in one of the landmark cases, it gets held that the previously instituted election petition was filed by an elector RamlalKol; whereas the instant election petition has been filed by a losing candidate Vijay Raghvendra Singh. Thus, the petitioner in the two election petitions are different and are not related to each other in any manner whatsoever, apart from the fact that both are voters of the constituency.
Thus, in the case at hand, two ingredients necessary for the applicability of the principle of res sub-judice, seem to be missing prima facie:
(i) The previously instituted suit is not between the same party, or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title;
(ii) The Court in which the former suit is pending does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent petition.[13]
CONCLUSION-
The purpose of this doctrine is just to save the time and resources of courts as well as public so that they can save them from the confusions and burden of different cases between same parties based on the same matter. It provides transparency to our judicial system by imposing certain limitations on the rights of people to file a case which is important from judiciaries’ point of views because otherwise everyone will file different cases according to their needs and this will make the situations unenviable for our system and make it impossible to give an accurate justice.
Sources:
[1]Sh. Hakim GulamJeelaniQutbi vs Delhi Wakf Board on 18 October 2011
[2]FulchandMotilal And Anr. vs ManharLallJethaLall Mehta on 27 September 1972
[3]A.Janakiraman vs The Railway Employees … on 16 September 2019
[4]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1064883/
[5]Sh. Hakim GulamJeelaniQutbi vs Delhi Wakf Board on 18 October 2011
[6]Sri SitharamaswamyVari … vs GrandhiSambasiva Rao And Ors. on 19 December 2005
[7] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/631068/
[8]D.R. Gupta vs Steel Authority Of India Limited on 10 May 1985
[9]Nilvaru v. Nilvaru [ILR 6 Bom. 110.],
[10] BaijnathKarnani v. VallabhdasDamani, AIR 1933 Madras 511 at 514.
[11]Nilvaru v. Nilvaru
[12]Shorab Merwanji Modi And Anr. vs Mansata Film Distributors And … on 1 March 1957
[13]Vijay Raghvendra Singh vs MotiKashyap on 5 August 2015
This blog is written by Anjali Tripathi, Nirma University
Some of her blogs-
- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXECUTION, SUSPENSION, REMISSION, AND COMMUTATION OF SENTENCES
- PROCEDURE FOR MAINTENANCE OF WIFE and CHILD
- DYING DECLARATION
- DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL
Visit our Instagram page @lawyergyan at this link.