Stay of suit
Full Text
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 have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.
Explanation.—The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.
Plain English Summary
Section 10 embodies the doctrine of res sub judice, prohibiting courts from proceeding with the trial of a subsequently instituted suit when the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same as in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. The explanation clarifies that pendency in a foreign court does not bar an Indian suit on the same cause of action.
Key Legal Elements
- Doctrine of Res Sub Judice: Prevents parallel litigation and conflicting judicial determinations between courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
- Directly & Substantially in Issue: The core matter in controversy in the later suit must be directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit.
- Identity of Parties & Title: Litigants in both suits must be identical or their legal representatives/privies litigating under the same title.
- Bar on Trial Only: Bars proceeding with the trial (substantive hearing of evidence); does not prohibit institution or urgent interlocutory reliefs.
- Foreign Suit Exception: Foreign suit pendency does not debar Indian courts from entertaining a suit on the same cause of action.
Practical Note
Strategic litigator's guidance: Section 10 bars the 'trial' (recording of evidence and final adjudication), not the institution of the suit or the hearing of interlocutory applications (such as Order 39 interim injunctions or appointment of a receiver). If the strict conditions of Section 10 are not met (e.g., slight variation in parties or reliefs), move an application under Section 151 invoking the court's inherent powers to either stay the subsequent suit or consolidate both suits for joint trial to avoid conflicting findings.
हिंदी पाठ
कोई भी न्यायालय किसी ऐसे वाद के विचारण में आगे कार्यवाही नहीं करेगा जिसमें विवादग्रस्त विषय उसी के अधीन दावा करने वाले किन्हीं पक्षकारों के बीच उसी हक के अधीन मुकदमेबाजी करने वाले उन्हीं पक्षकारों के बीच या ऐसे पक्षकारों के बीच, पूर्वतन संस्थित वाद में भी प्रत्यक्षतः और सारतः विवादग्रस्त है, जहां ऐसा वाद उसी न्यायालय में या भारत के किसी अन्य ऐसे न्यायालय में लम्बित है जिसे दावाकृत अनुतोष देने की अधिकारिता है, अथवा भारत की सीमाओं के परे केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा स्थापित या चालू रखे गए और वैसी ही अधिकारिता रखने वाले किसी न्यायालय में, अथवा उच्चतम न्यायालय के समक्ष लम्बित है।
स्पष्टीकरण.—किसी विदेशी न्यायालय में किसी वाद का लम्बित रहना भारत के न्यायालयों को उसी वादहेतुक पर आधारित किसी वाद का विचारण करने से प्रवारित नहीं करता है।