A number of theories or ideas serve as the foundation for the Indian legal system. These doctrines are crucial for two reasons. These ideas or doctrines can be used as a starting point for measuring the judiciary's effectiveness and ensuring the court keeps moving towards achieving justice is another beneficial component.

In order to codify the procedural rules in civil courts, the British first developed the Code of Civil Process in 1858. Subsequently, this legislation underwent several modifications, and the Code of Civil Process, 1908, was eventually passed, eliminating all of the code's shortcomings. Section 10 of this code outlines the steps for staying a lawsuit. The phrase "Doctrine of Res Sub Judice" only refers to this.

Giving all Indian residents access to fair and equitable justice is the fundamental goal of all courts. Therefore, ensuring that just one court handles a specific case simultaneously is important. The Doctrine of Res Sub Judice was derived under the Code of Civil Process for the same reason. This may serve as a technique to prevent the emergence of several cases.

Meaning Of The Doctrine:
The Latin maxim Res Sub judice, which means "under judgment," is used. The sub judice rule is based on the public policy that limits the likelihood of two conflicting rulings by the two courts and forbids the plaintiff from bringing two parallel cases on the same issue. Res Sub judice is a legal theory that aims to avoid duplicate cases and rulings that contradict one another. The notion prohibits holding a parallel trial in a case where a decision must be made in a prior case. Nonetheless, it has no restrictions on how the next suit can be filled.

This theory was established to stop the buildup of cases in the courts. By making sure the plaintiff is not receiving a double benefit, it maintains control. Most crucially, the doctrine is intended to prevent the prospect of two conflicting decisions being made for the same relief by different courts.

There is no such thing as an acceptable civil code on an international level because different nations have diverse economic systems and judicial systems. Very few international conventions or bilateral agreements include the civil procedure. The primary cause of this may also be that each nation is free to choose its national court system, and as a result, there may be variations in the civil courts' required procedural rules.

Origin:
The doctrine of Res Sub Judice's primary source was not discovered by us. Roman law serves as the foundation for this norm. This idea was derived from the exception rei judicatae doctrine, which is Latin for "prior judgment," in Roman law.

Both Hindu and Muslim jurists in ancient times realized the significance of this rule. The subjudice's ruling was commonly referred to as the Purva Nyaya, or prior judgment, in Hindu ancient law.

Section 10 Of The Civil Procedure Code:

The Civil Process Law of 1908 does not explicitly define the concept of Res sub judice. Yet, Section 10 of the CPC contains the fundamentals of Res sub judice. The principle of Stay of Suit along with Res Sub Judice is discussed in Section 10 of the lawsuit.

Before getting to understand the meaning of "Stay of Suit", it is important to first know the meaning of "suit".

The Connotation For The Term- Suit:

The term "suit" has no definition in the Code, although it refers to a legal action that is started by the filing of a plaint. In the case of, Hansraj Gupta and others v. Official Liquidators of the Dehradun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd, it was held that- Suit is a civil action that is started by the presentation of a suit, according to the Privy Council.

In the case of, Pandurang Ramchandra v. Shantibai Ramchandra, a Suit, according to the Supreme Court, refers to any legal action taken by an individual to seek out a legal remedy in a court of justice.

Now that we have understood the meaning of "Suit", we can move further to define- Stay of Suit.

Stay Of Suit According To Section 10 Of Cpc:

In the Code, "Stay of Suit" is explained in Section 10. The goal is to prevent courts with parallel jurisdiction from adjudicating on two similar lawsuits with the same claim, dispute, and damages at the same time. According to this theory, even if the original action is dismissed, launching a subsequent lawsuit is not banned.

The filing of a summary lawsuit is not included since the term "trail" is not utilized in its fullest sense. This Section only allows a "stay," not an extension of the ongoing procedures. Stay of a suit is not an option under any other statutes other than the Code of Civil Procedure in any other instances. Suits that are pending in foreign courts are not covered by Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Illustration: A and B had an agreement in place that required B to provide raw materials to A. B did not provide A with any products. There was a contractual duty that B broke. A brings legal action against B in the appropriate court. While this court's decision was being considered, A sued B again in a different court. A competent court by virtue of competence conferred in Section 10 put a stay on proceedings of another court because the subject matter of the case was the same and the decision was pending.

Objective Of Section 10:

The main idea or objective of section 10 of the CPC is:

• To avoid the same parties engaging in concurrent litigation on the same issue in two different courts.
• To avoid wasting the court's time and resources.
• To prevent making two decisions that conflict on the same issue.
• To ease the workload for the courts.
• To defend the other party's rights.
• To prevent unneeded waiting.

Scope Of Section 10:

It is clear from the context of this Section that the staying of a secondary suit relates to the trial and not the procedures. In actuality, Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a requirement. This indicates that no court may use its discretion to modify the stay order for the subsequent lawsuit. But, this does not imply that, in the event of a suit for a stay, the court loses its ability to conduct the trial. Even when it is not conducting a trial, the court may still monitor the proceedings.

Core Factors Of Section 10:

• Two outfits ought to be present.
• The issues in the later litigation must be directly and substantially the same as those in the earlier suits, and the suits must be between the same parties or their successors.
• The lawsuits should be still active in court​
• In both lawsuits, the parties must be engaged in the same type of litigation.

Key Aspects For Its Application In Real-Time:

Here are some conditions that should be fulfilled for the application of the said section and doctrine:

• Same Parties:
  The parties' shared identification is sufficient to impose a stay under Section 10. No two lawsuits must have the same parties. It suffices that a prior lawsuit was filed between parties who claim to be litigated under the same title for Section 10 to apply.
   
• Same Issue Matter:
  It is sufficient to show that the content of the matter in controversy in two lawsuits is identical for section 10 to be applied. The identity of reliefs is not required for this clause to apply.
   
• Pending Suit:
  Section 10 only permits this if a lawsuit is still pending. The defendant has a duty and responsibility to inform the court that a prior lawsuit is continuing. However, the Section is not applicable if the case is pending in a foreign court.
   
• Same Title:
  The parties must be suing under the same title in both lawsuits in ordforon 10 to apply.
   
• Competent Court:
  Section 10 of the CPC is only enforced when the prior litigation is still proceeding before the competent court, therefore the court should be competent.

Test Of Applicability Of Section 10:

The question of whether a previous court's result would serve as res judicata (decided case) in a subsequent case is the test of application for Section 10. If this occurs, the latter lawsuit needs to be put on hold. S.P.A Annamalay Chetty v. B.A. Thornbill also suggests this.

Ongoing Case In A Foreign Court:

There is no restriction on the ability of an Indian court to try a subsequently filed suit if the initially instituted suit is continuing in a foreign suit, according to the explanation clause of Section 10. This also implies that two courts may hear the cases concurrently

Inherent Power To Persist:

The definition of the word "inherent" is fairly broad and encompasses an integral component of anything, a persistent trait, or an attribute. It's something connected to a person or item. As a result, inherent powers are those that the courts possess that cannot be separated from or taken away from them, and which they use to give the parties full and fair justice.

A civil court has the inherent authority under Section 151 to stay a lawsuit to pursue justice, even in cases when the provisions of Section 10 do not strictly apply. Also, courts have the authority to combine numerous lawsuits brought by the same parties over virtually the same facts. The ownership of property was at stake in Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. vs. the State of Bihar and Others (1962). In this case, the court exercised its authority and combined many problems that related to the same thing.

Combination Of Lawsuits:

The purpose of Section 10 is to prevent two conflicting rulings in the same case from different courts. The courts may issue a consolidation order for both lawsuits to get around this. In the case of Anurag and Co. and Anr. v. Additional District Judge and Others, it was explained that Section 151 requires the consolidation of lawsuits to further the interests of justice by sparing the party from having to deal with several lawsuits, delays, and costs. The parties are also freed from having to provide the same proof twice.

When The Doctrine Can Not Be Applied?

The court ruled in the case of Alimmllah v. Sheikh that the rule of sub judice is not applicable when the issues in both lawsuits are distinct from one another.

In Abdul v. Asrafun, the court determined that this criterion does not apply when there are some similar problems and some distinct ones.

In Manzar v. Rema, this criterion does not apply where there are different issues between the parties even though the parties are the same.

Conclusion:
The basic goal of the theory of res sub judice is to lighten the load that excessive cases place on the courts. It lessens the need for parties to present oral or written evidence twice in various courts in another way as well. Additionally, it prevents inconsistent rulings and ensures that the least amount of court resources are wasted.

The court has the authority to use this authority to halt the ensuing lawsuit. This principle protects those who attempt to abuse their rights in order to receive double benefits. In any event, there are already too many cases for the Indian system to handle, and if parties start filing claims twice, it's impossible to think how the courts will be able to resolve them all.

List Of References:

• https://blog.ipleaders.in/res-sub-judice-under-cpc-nature-scope-and-objective/
• https://llbmania.com/2022/04/02/res-sub-judice-under-section-10-of-the-code-of-civil-procedure/
• https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/analysis-of-doctrine-of-res-sub-judice-in-code-of-civil-procedure-183216
• https://lawcirca.com/what-is-the-rule-of-res-sub-judice-under-cpc/#_ftn1
• https://www.lawinsider.in/columns/stay-of-suit-and-its-landmark-judgement
• https://blog.finology.in/Legal-news/res-judicata-res-sub-judice
• https://www.studocu.com/in/document/amity-university/civil-procedure-code-limitation-act/cpc-res-subjudice/9863429