Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code discusses the doctrine of res sub judice, which prevents a court from trying a case that involves issues directly and substantially the same as those in a previously filed pending case between the same parties. Section 11 discusses the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents a court from trying a case that involves issues directly and substantially the same as those that have already been finally decided in a former case between the same parties. The key difference is that res sub judice applies to pending matters, while res judicata applies to already adjudicated matters.

1. 1
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
SECTION 10:- RES SUB JUDICE
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].
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.
[Two suits-between same parties-involving same
subject matter and same questions-Held, subsequent
suit should be stayed:

2. 2
“RADHIKA KONEL PAREKH VERSUS KONEL
PAREKH”, AIR 1993 MAD. : (1993) LW 159:
(1993) 1 MAD LJ 163]
For the application of this section, the following
conditions must be satisfied:
I. There much be two suits, one previously instituted
and the other subsequently instituted.
II. The ‘matter in issue’ in the subsequent suit must
be directly and substantially in issue in the
previous suit.
III. Both the suits must be between the same parties
or their representatives.
IV. The previously instituted suit must be ‘pending’
in the same court in which the subsequent suit is
brought or in any other court in India or in any
court beyond the limits of India established or
continued by the Central Government or before
the Supreme Court.

3. 3
V. The Court in which the previous suit is instituted
must have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed
in the subsequent suit.
VI. Such parties must be litigating under the same
title in both the suits.
However, Section 10 does not take away power of the
court to examine the merits of the matter. If the
Court is satisfied that subsequent suit can be decided
purely on legal point, it is open to the court to
decide such suit [Pukhraj D. Jain vs. G.
Gopalakrishna, (2004) 7 SCC 251: AIR 2004 SC
3504]
SECTION 11:- RES JUDICATA
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 under
whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the
same title, in a Court competent to try such

4. 4
subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has
been subsequently raised, and has been heard and
finally decided by such Court.
Explanation I.-- The expression former suit shall
denote a suit which has been decided prior to a suit in
question whether or not it was instituted prior
thereto.
Explanation II.- For the purposes of this section, the
competence of a Court shall be determined
irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal
from the decision of such Court.
Explanation III.-The matter above referred to must
in the former suit have been alleged by one party and
either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by
the other.
Explanation IV.- Any matter which might and ought
to have been made ground of defence or attack in

5. 5
such former suit shall be deemed to have been a
matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
Explanation V.- Any relief claimed in the plaint,
which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for
the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been
refused.
Explanation VI.- Where persons litigate bona fide in
respect of a public right or of a private right claimed
in common for themselves and others, all persons
interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this
section, be deemed to claim under the persons so
litigating .
Explanation VII.- The provisions of this section shall
apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree
and references in this section to any suit, issue or
former suit shall be construed as references,
respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the

6. 6
decree, question arising in such proceeding and a
former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
Explanation VIII.-- An issue heard and finally
decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent
to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a
subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of
limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such
subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has
been subsequently raised.
Object:
a) nemo debet bis vesari pro una et eadem cause (no
man should be vexed twice for the same cause);
b) interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the
interest of the state that there should be an end to a
litigation); and

7. 7
c) res judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial
dicision must be accepted as correct).
Differences between res judicata and res subjudice:
The doctrine of res judicata differes from res
subjudice in two aspects:
1. Whereas res judicata applies to a matter
adjudicated upon (res judicatum), res subjudice
applies to a matter pending trial (sub judice); and
2. res judicata bars the trial of a suit or an issue
which has been decided in a former suit, res sub
judice bars trial of a suit which is pending decision in
a previously instituted suit.
Provision of Section 11 of the enacts that once a matter is
finally decided by a competent court, no party can be
permitted to reopen it in subsequent litigation. The basic
objects and operation of Section 11 was rightly pointed and
observed by the Supreme Court in the case of “Satyadhan
Ghosal vs. Deorajin Debi”