Res Sub Judice vs Res Judicata

Res Sub Judice, restrict the trial of the suit, Court postpones suit under the conditions given under section 10, it only applies when the previous suit is pending.

Res judicata describes the matters that are already judged. So let us discuss the difference between sections 10 and 11 of CPC which is the difference between Res Sub Judice and Res Judicata.

○ Under section 10, it is needed that there should be two suits, one should be previously installed and the second is substantially installed. But under section 11, the previous suit must have been decided by the court of law

○ The next difference is that, under Res Sub Judice, there is a need that the same Matter was been both of the suits, previous and later one, Whereas under Res judicata, there are also the matter should be the same, whether actual or constructive.

○ Under both sections suits must be between two parties, also both parties must have the same capacity to litigate both suits.

○ Section 10 deals with the principle of Res Sub Judice, whereas is Section 11 deals with the principle of Res judicata

○ Section 10 deals with the stay of a suit, but section 11 gives rules for the matter that has already been resolved.

○ Section 10 is not directly defined in CPC, but the description of section 11 is directly there in the CPC.

 Hence we can see, these differences between Res Sub Judice and Res judicata. Both seem similar it may be very tough to differentiate, but somehow these are different in the following aspects given above.

Essentials of res judicata:-

  It is not true that every matter decided in one suit would serve as Res Judicata in another. The following elements must be met in order for a matter to be considered res judicata:-

• The matter must be directly and materially in issue in the succeeding suit. Or the problem must be the same as the one that was directly and significantly in question in the previous litigation.

• The previous suit had to have been between the same parties. Or between parties to which they or any of them have a claim.

•In the previous suit, such parties must have been litigating under the same title.

• The court that resolved the first case must be competent to hear the second case. Alternatively, the litigation in which the matter is later raised.

•The court in the previous suit must have heard and decided the topic directly and materially in question in the current suit.

  Essentials of Res subjudice:-

•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.

Cases:-

●       Before a plea of res judicata Can be given effect, the following conditions must be proved:

1.       that the litigating parties must be the same.

2.        that the subject matter of the suit also must be identical.

3.       that the matter must be finally decided between the parties.

4.      that the suit must be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction [Ashrafi Lal v. Kolil, AIR 1995 SC 1441]

The principle of res judicata  applies as between two stages in the same litigation [Monzoor Jahan v. Hazi Hussain Bkash 18 DLR (SC) 346]  

The rule of res judicata refers not to the date of the commencement of the litigation but to the date when the judge is called upon to decide the issue.

Sheodan Singh V. Daryao Kunwar AIR 1966 SC 1332

Escorts Const. Equipments Ltd V Action Const Equipments Ltd

 Court held that the conditions requisite to invoke S.10 CPC are:

●    The matter in issue in both the suits is substantially the same.

●       Suit to be between the same parties or parties litigating under them

●   Previously instituted suit to be in the same Court or a different Court, which has jurisdiction to grant the relief asked.

●       There is nothing to the effect that the defendant should not question the competency of the previous Court in the previously instituted suit, and there remains the fact that the plaintiff in their defense against S.10 CPC, had not stated the Jamshedpur Court is competent. Thus relief was granted to the defendant.

Again, In this case, it was held that. when a matter is before a competent Civil Court, the National Commission will not entertain a petition in respect of an identical subject matter.

 Indian Bank V Maharashtra State Co-Operative Marketing Federation 1943: The court, in this case, held that the object of prohibition in S.10 CPC, is to, prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel cases to avoid inconsistent findings on the matter in issue.

Conclusion:-

The Doctrine of Res Judicata may be understood as something which restricts both birthday celebrations to “flow the clock back” throughout the pendency of the proceedings. The quantity of res judicata is extensive and it consists of plenty of factors that even encompass Public Interest Litigations.

This doctrine may be implemented out of doors in the Code of Civil Procedure and covers a variety of regions that might be associated with society and people. The scope and the quantity have widened with the passage of time and the Supreme Court has elongated the regions with its judgments.

The basic goal of the theory of res sub judice is to relieve courts of the burden of excessive cases. In addition, it relieves parties of the burden of presenting oral or written evidence twice in separate courts.