Keyword- difference between res judicata and res sub judice cpc,difference between res judicata and estoppel, res sub judice section 10 cpc, res sub judice in cpc
In every lawsuit, the judiciary bases its decisions on a set of guiding principles, doctrines, and precedents. These ideas are crucial to the smooth operation of the court and the rapidity of judgment delivery. Because there are so many cases filed every day in our nation, the litigation procedure is very costly and time-consuming.
In order to ensure effectiveness and promptness during procedures, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has two doctrines: res judicata and res sub judice.
res judicata in cpc: About
- The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contains a Section 11 that addresses res-judicata.
- This means that no court will try a suit, an issue in a suit, or any point raised in a subsequent suit that has already been heard and resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction if the issue has already been decided between the parties to the suit or the other parties according to them for those whose rights the suit was initially brought in a court of competent jurisdiction, heard, and decided by that court.
res sub judice in cpc: About
- The term “stay of suit” refers to the res-sub judice doctrine. This Code establishes guidelines for the civil court regarding the res sub judice doctrine. This provision only applies to the trial phase of a lawsuit, not its inception.
- res sub judice section 10 cpc aims to shield an individual from several proceedings and prevent a conflict of rulings. Additionally, it shields litigants from needless harassment. It also provides effect to the res judicata norm and attempts to prevent (avoid) difficulty for the parties.
difference between res judicata and res sub judice cpc
There is various significant difference between res judicata vs res sub judice. They are as follows:
| RES JUDICATA | RES SUB JUDICE |
| The matter has been decided upon and deemed conclusive. | It’s a matter that’s being talked about at the present. |
| It basically provides closure and avoids re-litigation. | It basically saves time and prevents repeated proceedings. |
| It is used following a case’s definitive decision. | It is used while a judicial case is still pending. |
| It is contingent upon the filing of one previous lawsuit and one more. | It is contingent upon two civil lawsuits involving the same individuals. |
| It is used when the subject of a later lawsuit is closely related. | It is used when an earlier lawsuit is still pending in front of a judge. |
| When parties in a later litigation are the same or similar, it is employed. | When a future lawsuit is filed with a similar title, it is employed. |
| It’s a lawsuit that was brought in a court of law. | If a later application is submitted to the Tahsildar, Section 10 is applicable. |
| It is contingent upon the court having heard and resolved the matter in an earlier lawsuit. | It is contingent upon the date on which the plaint is presented when the lawsuit is instituted. |
Application of Res Judicata in Case Laws
- In the case of Daryao and Ors v State of U. P. and Ors, the Supreme Court noted that all courts adhere to the fundamental idea of res judicata, which holds that litigation must end, and that it is not limited to documents.
- In the case of Satya Charan v Dev Rajan, the requirement to give judicial decisions a definitive form is the foundation for the notion of res-judicata, according to the Supreme Court. This means that a case that has already been determined cannot be reopened for consideration.
Application of Res Sub Judice in Case Laws
- In the case of Indian Bank v Maharashtra State Co-Operative Marketing Federation, the goal of the res sub judice doctrine, according to the Supreme Court, is to prevent courts from having jurisdiction in trying two related cases at the same time in order to avoid giving conflicting decisions on the topic at hand.
- The case of Manohar Lal v Rai Bahadur Rao, affirms and emphasizes the significance of abiding by Section 10’s provisions as well as the goal of preventing contemporaneous courts from concurrently considering separate lawsuits on the exact same claim, issue, and relief.
difference between res judicata and estoppel
- A legal doctrine known as res judicata forbids a court from intervening in a matter that has already been resolved by another court. Estoppel forbids the parties from taking specific actions, including retracting what he had said earlier.
It is inevitable that both res judicata and res sub judice in cpc doctrines be closely adhered to in order to guarantee the smooth functioning of the court system and to provide justice for those who are in need, given the rise of cases in the courts and the greater strain on the courts due to numerous frivolous and repetitive lawsuits. These lessons are not meant to be used with the intention of evading justice, nor should they be applied in that way. Instead, increasing the court system’s efficiency is the main objective.
Res Sub judice forbids the parties’ trial together, but res judicata prevents the parties from launching a lawsuit. Whereas in res sub judice, the suit has to be pending before the appropriate court, in res judicata the suit has to be resolved in the appropriate court. Therefore, the application of these doctrines is required to ensure that the judicial process is efficient and quick.
