Res sub-judice refers to a matter that is under consideration by a court. The doctrine of res sub-judice prevents parallel litigation in different courts on the same subject matter between the same parties. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives courts the power to stay proceedings in a subsequent suit if the matter is directly and substantially the same as one already pending in another competent court. This aims to avoid conflicting decisions, reduce the burden on courts, and prevent unnecessary harassment of litigants from multiple proceedings. For a stay to be granted under Section 10, the previous and subsequent suits must have the same parties and title, and the matter in issue must be directly and substantially the same.

1. Res Sub-Judice under CPC
Meaning
•Res means every object of right that forms the subject matter in a particular case. In Latin, the
term Sub-judice means ‘under a judge’ or in other words, a matter ‘under consideration’. It
means a cause that is under trial or pending before a court or judge.
•The doctrine of res-judicata prevents the trial of a suit which is already pending in a court of
competent jurisdiction.
•When the same parties file two or three cases in the same matter, the competent court has
the power to stay proceedings of another court.
•The primary aim is to prohibit the courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously
entertaining two parallel litigations.

2. Nature, Scope and Objective
•The principle of res sub-judice prevents the court from proceeding with the trial of any suit in
which the matter in issue is directly or substantially the same with the previously instituted suit
between the same parties and the court where the issue is previously instituted is pending has
the power to grant the relief sought.
•This rule is applicable to the trial of the suit and not the institution. It does not restrict the
court from passing interim orders like injunction or stay. However, it applies to revisions and
appeals.
•The purpose behind this rule is to prevent multiplicity of cases in courts. It is also sought to
prevent the plaintiff from getting two separate decisions from different courts in his favor or two
contradictory judgments.
•It also ensures to protect the litigant from unnecessary harassment. The policy of law is to
restrict the plaintiff to one legislation, thus obviating the possibility of two conflicting verdicts by
one and the same court in respect of the same relief.

3. Provision
10. Stay of suit.— 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 have 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.
Explanation.— The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India
from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action
Thus it provides that, civil court should not proceed with the trial of any suit in which the
matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the
same parties and the court before which the previously instituted suit is pending is
competent to grant the relief sought (Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Cop. Marketing
Federation Ltd., AIR 1998 SC 1952).

4. What are the essentials of Section 10?
•There should be two suits
•The suits must be between the same parties or their successors
•The matter in the issue in the later suit must be directly and substantially the same as in the
previous suits
•Both the suits should be pending before the court of law
•The parties must be litigating under the same title in both the suits.
If the above essentials are fulfilled, the court can stay the proceedings under Section 10 of
CPC.

5. What are the conditions necessary for the application of Section 10?
Same Parties – For imposing stay under Section 10, the identity of the parties is enough. Parties
in two suits need not be the same. To apply Section 10 it is enough that previously instituted
suit is between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title.
Matter in the issue must be same – For the application of section 10, it is enough to establish
that substance of the matter in controversy in two suits are same. The Identity of reliefs is not
necessary for the applicability of this section.
The suit must be pending – Section 10 gives the power to put stay on proceedings only if
previously suit is pending. It is a duty and responsibility on the defendant to make the court
aware about pending of former suit. But if it is pending in foreign court, then Section is not
applied.
Title must be the same – To apply section 10, the parties must be litigating under the same title
under both suits.
The court should be competent – Section 10 of CPC is only applied when the previous suit is
pending before the competent court.

6. Illstrations
‘A’ an agent of ‘S’ at Jaipur agreed to sell S’s goods in Bangalore. ‘A’ the agent files suit for
balance of accounts in Bangalore. ‘S’ sues the agent ‘A’ for accounts and his negligence in
Jaipur; while case is pending in Bangalore. In this case, Jaipur Court is precluded from
conducting trial and can petition Bangalore Court to direct stay of proceedings against Jaipur
Court.
‘A’ and ‘B’ entered into contract for the sale of machine. ‘A’ first filed a suit against ‘B’ at court
Bombay, demanding recovery of the entire amount paid. Subsequently, ‘B’ filed a suit against
‘A’ at court Delhi demanding Rs.18, 000 as outstanding balance. In A’s suit, ‘B’ took the
defence that since both the suits are on similar issues, A’s suit should be stayed. However,
court Delhi held that since A’s suit is the first suit and the subsequent suit had issues similar to
the first suit, it is the subsequent suit that is liable to be stayed.

7. Suit pending in foreign court
The explanation clause of Section 10 clearly provides that there is no limitation on the power of
an Indian court to try a subsequent instituted suit if the previously instituted suit is pending in a
foreign suit. This also means that the cases can be carried on simultaneously in two courts.
When court cannot apply the doctrine of Res sub judice?
•In the case of Alimmllah vs. Sheikh, the court held that the rule of sub judice is not applied
when issues in both suits are distinct and different.
•In the case of Abdul vs. Asrafun, the court held that rule is not applied when there are some
common issues and some different.
•When the parties are the same but there are different issues between them.
•It is not necessary for the applicability of Section 10 that all the issues in the prior instituted
suit should also be issued in the later suit.

8. What is the objective behind inserting section 10?
To prevent parallel litigation in two different courts between the same parties on the same
subject matter.
To prevent wastage of the court’s resources and time
To avoid two contradictory Decisions on the same subject matter
To reduce the burden on the courts
To protect the rights of the other party.
To avoid unnecessary delay
The OBJECT of the section is to protect a person from a multiplicity of proceedings and to avoid
a conflict of decisions. It also protects the litigant people from unnecessary harassment (SPA
Annamalay Chetty v. BA Thornlill, AIR 1931 PC 263).

9. Res Judicata Res Sub Judice
Res judicata applies to a decided or
adjudicated matter.
Res Sub judice applies in a matter
which is pending.
It bars the trial of a suit or an issue
which has already been decided in a
former suit.
It bars trial of a suit which is a
pending decision in a previously
instituted suit.
Section 11 of the Civil Procedural
Code, 1908 deals with res judicata.
Section 10 of the Code exclusively
deals with the principle of res sub
judice.
Difference between Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice

10. Conditions:
1.A court of competent jurisdiction must
have given the decision in the former
instituted suit.
2.The matter in issue in the subsequent
suit must be same which is directly or
substantially in issue in the former suit.
3.The parties should be same in both the
suits.
4.The court which gave decision in
former suit must be a court of competent
jurisdiction.
5.The parties in the former suit must
have litigated under the same title or in
other words in the same capacity.
Conditions:
1.There must be presence of two suits
one which was formerly instituted and
other which was subsequently instituted.
2.The issues in the subsequent suit
should be directly or substantially be the
same with the previous suit.
3.The parties in both the suits should be
same.
4.The court in which the previous suit
was instituted must be a court which has
competent jurisdiction to try such suit.
5.The title should also be the same in
both the suits under which they are lit

11. Conclusion
•Res sub judice as a doctrine has the main purpose of reducing the burden of courts from
abundance cases.
•
•In other way it also reduces the burden of parties to adduce oral or written evidence twice in
different courts. It also avoids conflicting decisions and makes sure to minimise the waste of
resources of courts.
•The court can exercise this power and put a stay on the subsequent suit. The people who try to
misuse their right in order to get double benefits are looked after through this principle.
•Anyways the Indian judiciary is overburdened with many cases and if parties will start
instituting cases twice then one can’t even imagine the situation of the courts in giving decision
in all such cases.