The Civil Procedural Code, 1980 was initially with a view to have a fixed civil procedure in all the courts. The code also has doctrines, not only provisions and rules. Which are to be applicable in every case to make sure that there is proper operation of judiciary so that the people's trust, faith and assurance in judiciary and its working remain unhindered.

The doctrine of res sub judice and section 10 of CPC should be strictly followed and applied for the smooth running of the court powers. Double filing of the same matter will lead pending in decision making or will create a chaotic environment as the judgments which will be passed will be passed by different judges and will not be the same, and also led to time consuming of both the courts. This paper analysis the doctrine of res sub judice given under section 10 of CPC and one of the landmark judgments with reference to other cases as well.

Introduction
If we look at the legal framework in India, is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure (1908), it is designed in a way to stop unwanted litigation and ensure that legal disputes are adjudicated efficiently. One of the key processes is used to prevent multiple or parallel litigation is the Doctrine of Res Sub Judice and is being codified in section 10 of CPC. This section talks about "a suit when a previously instituted suit involving the same matter of offence between same parties is pending before another competent court".

This section further allows the court to stay any suit or proceeding that is barred by this provision. Basically, this section will help us to maintain judicial efficiency, and safeguards parties from facing multiple litigation over same issue. We will look into the landmark case of Indian Back v. Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. Which will provide significant insights into the judicial interpretation of the doctrine of Res Sub Judice which is section 10 of CPC.

Doctrine of Res Sub Judice
The Latin term "Res Sub Judice" means 'under judgement' which demonstrate that a matter is already being adjudicating by a competent court. This doctrine prevents the courts from proceeding with a trial in a suit where the subject matter is already unresolved in a prior instituted suit involving the same parties and substantially with the same issue also. This doctrine main object is to: -

1. Avoid unwanted repetition of court proceedings and stopping wastage of judicial time and their resources.
2. This Latin doctrine will stop the risk of contradictory judgements on the same matter.
3. It will ensure that the parties are not harassed by facing multiple litigation on the same subject matter but in different courts.
4. Maintain integrity of judicial proceedings.
5. Parties are protected from the burden of handling multiple suits on the same matter.

Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908

This section is basically the integrated version of Res Sub Judice which states that "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] [Substituted by Act 2 of 1951, Section 3, for " the States". ] established or continued by [the Central Government] [Substituted by A.O. 1937, for " the G.G. in C." . ] [***] [The words " or the Crown Representative" omitted by A.O. 1948.] and having like jurisdiction, or before [the Supreme Court] [Substituted by A.O. 1950, for " His Majesty in Council".]."

The key features of this section are:

1. There must be two suits- one which is previously filed, and the other one is subsequently filed.
2. The subject matter to both the cases must involve the same parties or parties claiming under the same.
3. The matter should be pending in a court of competent jurisdiction. If it's not, then this section won't apply.

Example:

Assume there was an agreement between M&N where N needs to supply M with some grains, but N didn't supply with the same, which lead to breach of contract by N. M files suit against N in the competent court. Meanwhile, the decision of this court was already pending, M filed another suit against N in another court. This will lead to wastage of time of the supreme authority and their judgement can be contradictory. However, section 10 defends a person from filing multiple suits and to prevent difference in opinion. It further defends the plaintiff from irrelevant provocation and intends to avoid the burden of the parties. This section is procedural and does not address the merit of the case. Application of section 10 of CPC may lead to "a delay in proceedings and parties might use this provision tactically to stall proceedings. The aim of this section is to temporarily halt the section proceeding until the first matter is resolved. This section is also a correlation of Res Sub Judice."

Case Laws:

• In the case of Alimmllah v. Sheikh, the court held that the doctrine of res sub judice will not be applicable because when the issue in both the suits which were filed was different and distinct.
• In the case of Abdul v. Asrafun, the court held that the doctrine won't apply even when there are some common issues, and some are different.

Important judgement
Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Coop. Marketing Federation Ltd (1985) 5 SCC 69.

This case is a landmark judgement in Indian Civil Procedural Law, it's ruling in the Supreme Court explained on the application of the doctrine of Res Sub Judice under section 10 of CPC.

Facts Of The Case:
"There was dispute between Indian Bank and the Maharashtra State Cooperative, when they contracted for financial transaction. The bank seeking a decree of Rs. 4,96,59,160, alleging that this amount was recoverable through a letter of credit. It was said that suit was not allowed since it had already filed a lawsuit against the bank for the recovery of the amount which led to the multiple filing of suits in different courts, but the subject matter and the parties which were involved were same, which led to violating of section 10 of CPC.

The bank at first filed a suit in a civil court related to the recovery of certain amount. Subsequently, MSCML filed another matter in a different court over the same issue and even parties were same. The court pointed few things in order to avoid undermining each provision's ultimate objective, that it is essential that both the clauses be interpreted harmoniously.

Looking at the word trial court argued that it has wide meaning and is not necessary that taking into account the objective of section 10 and order 37. After the dissatisfaction with the decision, they appealed to Division Bench of High Court, it was concluded that the trial encompasses the entire proceedings that follows after the defendant enters appearance, which led to filing of the suit before Supreme Court against the order of division bench of Bombay High Court.

Issue:

1. Whether the issue filed before the Supreme Court was the second suit filed by MSCML which could proceed in the light of the prior instituted suit by Indian Bank?
2. Whether the matter in both the suits which were filed was directly and substantially the same?
3. Whether the Doctrine of Res Sub Judice under section 10 of the CPC could be invoked to stay the trial of the second suit? The crux of the suit is that the suit which were filed were based upon the same transaction which involved the same parties and the same subject matter in both the cases.

Judgement:

1. Decision by Trial Court: The court observed that section 10 does not apply to the summary suits as 'trials' begin only after leave is granted for defense to be made.
2. Decision by High Court: The High Court reversed the decision made by the trial court and took a different view regarding the interpretation of 'trial' under section 10 of CPC.
3. Decision by Supreme Court: The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's decision and upheld the trial court's ruling. The apex court held that section 10 of CPC does not bar order XXXVII summary suits. It also emphasized on a harmonious interpretation between section 10 and order XXXVII so that their objectives are not frustrated.

The main legal principles looked upon in this case:

1. The court highlighted the doctrine of Res Sub Judice, which applies when the parties and subject matter in both suits are similar. In this case, the transaction between Indian Bank and MSCML is the same.
2. The court emphasized the filing of multiple suits on the same issue, which would lead to unnecessary consumption of judicial time and resources, and the potential for conflicting judgments.
3. The court stated that once the conditions of section 10 are fulfilled, the trial of the second suit must be stayed until there has been a resolution of the previous suit.
4. The court condemned the practice of filing multiple suits just to gain a benefit in different courts, emphasizing that such strategies undermine the judicial process and the purpose of the doctrine.

The Supreme Court in this case clarified the application of section 10 regarding summary suits under order XXXVII. The court held that the appeal was granted, overturning the contested decision of the Division Bench of the High Court and reinstating the decision of the single bench judge. No cost order was established based on the facts and circumstances of the case. This judgment serves as an essential explanation of procedural law in India, particularly for civil matters under the Civil Procedure Code. Challenges and Criticism to the Doctrine:

• There is a possibility of delay. While section 10 stops parallel litigation, it can also lead to delays in the resolution of disputes. If the first matter is prolonged, the second suit may be stayed for an unspecified period, leaving both parties without an instant remedy.
• It could be complex to understand whether the issue in both matters is 'directly and substantially the same,' which could be a difficult task.
• Section 10 has limited applicability, as it only applies to matters that are not filed twice and does not extend to other forms like writ petitions or interim applications, leading to confusion in its application.
• Some parties may attempt to manipulate the doctrine by filing a petty suit in one court to prevent the trial of another suit in a different court. Though section 10 is intended to stop abusive litigation, it can be used as a tool for delaying justice.

Important Judgements:

• Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalkrishna: The Supreme Court ruled that the courts' ability to consider the suit's merit is unaffected by the mere filing of an application under section 10. The court also emphasized that the suit should not continue if it was brought with the intention of harassing the opposing party.
• ManoharLal v. Seth Hiralal: The Supreme Court held that the language and understanding of section 10 were clear, definite, and mandatory, prohibiting the trial of a subsequent suit even if the earlier suit violated the agreement of the parties.

Where court cannot apply res sub judice: - it mentions that the court cannot apply this clause in a situation where the parties are same, but the issues are not same, additionally where the points at issues are distinct and diverse, or even in as situation where some issues are similar, and others are not.

Analysis
As analyzing to the concept of res sub judice and section 10 of CPC, it is narrow in its application, but I think it is important in its impact. As this doctrine will help the opposition party for not harassing and filing duplicate suit for the extension or putting a stay to the previous matter. As read in many articles it was mentioned that the doctrine of res sub judice applies to the civil cases. And when we studied criminal law, we learnt that there is a similar concept of double jeopardy, which basically means a person cannot be liable twice for the same offence committed. This also somehow relates to the concept of res sub judice where they try not the harm other party with the filing of multiple suits for the same offence.

In some instances, it has its disadvantage also like there has been some dispute between A&B about some money laundering, A files in Bombay first and B files in Chennai, now due to applicability of section 10 of CPC the second suit will not be accepted, but there has been delay in giving judgement in Bombay court then here both the parties have to over long wait till the time of judgement.

Conclusion
The doctrine of res sub judice has a main purpose as it plays a crucial role in reducing the burden of courts from multiple cases of same parties and ensuring the judicial efficiency, stopping conflicting judgments and even safeguarding the litigants from the burden of facing multiple suits on same issues, and even make sure to minimize the waste of resources of courts.

However, the court use this authority to halt the next lawsuit. The idea is to safeguard those who attempts to misuse their right in order to receive double benefit from the courts. Regardless, of all the Indian judiciary is already overworked, and if the parties began filing same lawsuits more than once, it would really be impossible for the court to manage and even decide on that one case.

The case of Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Coop. Marketing Federation Ltd. it explains and exemplifies how the Indian judiciary applies the doctrine of res sub judice to stop parallel litigation and promote judicial economy. Reforms and careful judicial application of this doctrine are necessary to ensure that section 10 continues to provide the interests of justice without becoming a tool for delaying litigation.

We agree as Indian Judiciary system has some loopholes which results in disposal of justice which gets slow and ineffective. Hence, the doctrine of res sub judice must be followed and applied strictly and effectively in every case to prevent conflict of decision between two competent courts. Hence, the applicability of this doctrine and section is very important.

References:

1. Rai D, 'Res Sub-Judice under CPC: Nature, Scope and Objective' (iPleaders, 11 January 2022) Res Sub-Judice under CPC: Nature, Scope and Objective - iPleaders: www.ipleaders.in/res-sub-judice-under-cpc-nature-scope-and-objective/
2. (Indian Bank vs Maharashtra State Co-operative ... on 5 May 1998) Indian Bank vs Maharashtra State Co-Operative ... on 5 May 1998 accessed 11 September 2024: www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1870176/
3. (The code of civil procedure, 1908 ______ arrangement of ...) A1908-05.pdf accessed 10 September 2024: www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2187/1/A1908-05.pdf
4. Stay of suits: Understanding section 10 of the code of civil procedure (CPC) - court cast. (n.d. a). Stay of Suits: Understanding Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Court Cast: www.courtcast.com/stay-of-suits-understanding-section-10-of-cpc/
5. Barelawindia. (2024, April 19). Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd, Air 1998 SC 1952: Barelaw - BareLaw. BareLaw.in. Stay of Suits: Understanding Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Court Cast: www.barelaw.in/indian-bank-v-maharashtra-state-cooperative-marketing/
6. Network L, 'Stay of Suit and Its Landmark Judgement' (LAW INSIDER INDIA- INSIGHT OF LAW (SUPREME COURT, HIGH COURT AND JUDICIARY, 6 February 2021) Stay of suit and its Landmark Judgement - LAW INSIDER INDIA- INSIGHT OF LAW (SUPREME COURT, HIGH COURT AND JUDICIARY accessed 11 September 2024: www.lawinsider.in/stay-of-suit-and-its-landmark-judgement/
7. (Code of civil procedure: Res sub-judice & res judicata by Mahamud Wazed | PDF) Code of Civil Procedure: Res sub-judice & Res Judicata by Mahamud Wazed | PDF | Free Download accessed 11 September 2024: www.pdfdrive.com/code-of-civil-procedure-res-sub-judice-res-judicata-e1234567.html

Written By: Nishtha Jain, a third-year law student at Jindal Global Law School, has submitted this article.