Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Coop. Marketing Federation, AIR 1998 SC 1952 Trikamda Jethabhai v. Jivraj Kalianji AIR 1942 Bombay, 314 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 S 10

    Uploaded by

    Aaryana Anand
    Section 10 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure prevents parallel litigation of suits that involve the same parties, subject matter, questions, and relief. It allows courts to stay a subsequent suit if a previously filed suit is pending in the same or another court of competent jurisdiction in India or established by the Central Government. The section aims to avoid contradictory judgments and reduce multiplicity of proceedings. To apply Section 10, the two suits must have identical parties, the same matter in issue, be pending simultaneously, involve the same title, and be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. The section does not apply to suits pending in foreign courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Coop. Marketing Federation, AIR 1998 SC 1952 Trikamda Jethabhai v. Jivraj Kalianji AIR 1942 Bombay, 314 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 S 10

    Uploaded by

    Aaryana Anand
    71 views3 pages
    Section 10 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure prevents parallel litigation of suits that involve the same parties, subject matter, questions, and relief. It allows courts to stay a subsequent suit if a previously filed suit is pending in the same or another court of competent jurisdiction in India or established by the Central Government. The section aims to avoid contradictory judgments and reduce multiplicity of proceedings. To apply Section 10, the two suits must have identical parties, the same matter in issue, be pending simultaneously, involve the same title, and be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. The section does not apply to suits pending in foreign courts.

    Original Description:

    Code of cIVIL pROCEDURE

    Original Title

    cpc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Section 10 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure prevents parallel litigation of suits that involve the same parties, subject matter, questions, and relief. It allows courts to stay a subsequent suit if a previously filed suit is pending in the same or another court of competent jurisdiction in India or established by the Central Government. The section aims to avoid contradictory judgments and reduce multiplicity of proceedings. To apply Section 10, the two suits must have identical parties, the same matter in issue, be pending simultaneously, involve the same title, and be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. The section does not apply to suits pending in foreign courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views3 pages

    Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Coop. Marketing Federation, AIR 1998 SC 1952 Trikamda Jethabhai v. Jivraj Kalianji AIR 1942 Bombay, 314 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 S 10

    Uploaded by

    Aaryana Anand
    Section 10 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure prevents parallel litigation of suits that involve the same parties, subject matter, questions, and relief. It allows courts to stay a subsequent suit if a previously filed suit is pending in the same or another court of competent jurisdiction in India or established by the Central Government. The section aims to avoid contradictory judgments and reduce multiplicity of proceedings. To apply Section 10, the two suits must have identical parties, the same matter in issue, be pending simultaneously, involve the same title, and be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. The section does not apply to suits pending in foreign courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Article on Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

    The phrase Res Subjudicie is a Latin maxim with means “under judgment”. The purpose of the
    same is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, to restrict the chances of having contradictory
    judgments by different courts. This doctrine is codified in section 10 of the Code of Civil
    Procedure, which bars the parallel trial of a suit where the matter is pending in a previous
    litigation, and has the same cause of action and relief1. Thus, two suit between same parties,
    involving same subject-matter and same questions then the subsequent suit should be stayed 2
    Section 10 of CPC provides for stay of suit, and reads as follows:

    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 1[India] having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in
    any Court beyond the limits of 1[India] established or continued by 2[the Central Government]
    3[***] and having like jurisdiction, or before 4[the Supreme Court].

    Explanation- The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in 1[India]
    from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.3

    Essential Ingredients of Section 10

     There must be two suits. On instituted previously and the other instituted subsequently.
     Both suits shall be pending in the Courts of India or Courts established outside India
    under the authority of the Central Government
     The matter in issue in the previous suit shall be substantially in issue in subsequent suit.
     The Court in which previous suit is instituted must have jurisdiction to grant relief
    claimed in the subsequent suit.
     Both the parties must be between the same parties or their representatives
     Both parties must be litigating under the same title

    1
    Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Coop. Marketing Federation, AIR 1998 SC 1952
    2
    Trikamda Jethabhai v. Jivraj Kalianji AIR 1942 Bombay, 314
    3
    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s 10
    If these conditions are fulfilled, The Court is empowered to stay the later suit and not the earlier
    one4

    The conditions necessary for the application of Section 10 are as follows

    1. Identical Parties
    In order to impose a stay under Section 10, the previously instituted suit must be between the
    same parties, or those litigating under the same title.

    2. 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.5

    3. 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 of the defendant to make the court aware about pendency of the former
    suit
    4. Title must be the same
    To apply section 10, the parties must be litigating under the same title under both suits.

    5. The court should be one of competent jurisdiction 


    Section 10 of CPC is only applied when the previous suit is pending before a competent court. If
    it is shown that the suit in question is pending before a court that does not have the jurisdiction to
    decide the same, section 10 shall not apply. 6

    Further, section 10 shall not apply when issues in suits are distinct and different.7 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. Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code do not apply to the foreign

    4
    Dinshaw v. Galstaun, AIR 1927 Bom 245
    5
    Arumugha Udayar rep. by Power Agent Periyasami v. Lakshmi, AIR 2005 CHN 717
    6
    Raj Spinning Mills v. A.G. King Ltd. AIR 1954 Punj 113
    7
    Ambika Sahu v. Sumitra Sahu, AIR 1990 Ori 127
    courts. The pendency of a suit before any foreign court does not bar Indian courts to initiate
    proceedings on the same cause of action.8

    8
    Radhey Shyam Agarwal v. Kashinath Vaish, AIR 1960 MP 169.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy