Section 10 of the CPC ordains that no court will try any suit in which the matter directly and substantially is similar to a previously instituted case between exactly the same parties, provided that the earlier proceeding filed has been pending before another competent court having jurisdiction.[1]

According to this provision, once a suit is pending adjudication, then in respect of the same matter and all parties involved, another suit cannot be proceeded with, which avoids conflicting judgments and also judicial wastage. Doctrine of Res sub judice, as provided in Section 10 CPC, is a very important doctrine under Indian Civil Procedure, based on the principles of justice and fairness, and the speedy disposal of disputes.[2] Over the years, various Indian courts have developed the scope and application of Section 10, clarifying the conditions under which the doctrine applies.

Historical Evolution
The doctrine of res sub-judice is a latinate expression signifying "a matter under judgment" and was rooted in Roman law, provided the foundation for many legal doctrines which promotes finality and expediency on litigation. The English common law further refined this principle and identified it as an instrument to ward off parallel litigation actions, along with preventing inconsistent judgments.

This doctrine was introduced into Indian jurisprudence during British colonial rule, as it became quite clear that a country could not function well with different legal systems for its citizens. The codification of civil procedure law received impetus with the enactment of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1859, intended to be a single legislative act that replaced the various procedures used by different courts in India.

This early legislation included a number of procedural protections, such as the principle res sub-judice to expedite judicial resolution on disputes whose continued litigation would lead towards two or more suits in relitigating substantially similar questions.

This was followed by the CPC revision of 1908, which in particular served to systematize and clarify previous regulatory laydowns. The doctrine of res sub-judice was specifically enshrined in section 10 of the CPC 1908. The purpose of this codification was to prevent any further suit on the same subject matter and parties pending the determination of a previously filed action.[3]

Indian courts have been an important force behind interpreting and applying Section 10, thereby influencing the way law has been enforced throughout the whole of the 20th century. The use and ambit of the doctrine were elaborated by judicial pronouncements, which made it clear that the doctrine is applicable to avoid judicial duplication and conflicting judgments that could arise in conflicting decisions from different courts. Courts emphasized that in order for the court to apply the doctrine, the proceeding initiated earlier must be pending in a competent Court, and the cause of action in both suits is necessarily the same. The Doctrine of res sub-judice still remains one of the most vital safeguards in Indian judicial practice.
 
Analysis
The principle behind this doctrine is that where a matter is directly and substantially in issue between the same parties to an earlier instituted suit by competent courts, no subsequent lawsuit on that ground can proceed till all such suits are resolved.[4] This doctrine has been critically analyzed in this article to show how it is very important for the administration of justice as we look at judicial economy competing with the rights of litigants.

The judicial comity principle is encoded in section 10, which seeks to prevent a multiplicity of suits on common issues. This doctrine serves to prevent the waste of courts' resources since issues that are under judicial consideration can be re-litigated. The move comes to reduce the pendency of cases, which has long been an issue in the Indian judicial system. The provision upholds the idea of legal certainty and finality by shielding parties from the burden of defending numerous cases on the same issue.

As long as the previous complaint is still continuing in a different court and that court is competent, the courts have generally found that the theory applies.[5] This reading of the doctrine upholds its intention to prevent contradictory rulings from several courts. In order to prevent the doctrine from being abused to prevent lawsuits with distinct parties or matters from being stayed, the courts have further underlined that the parties in both claims must be the same.

Section 10 not only ensures fairness by delaying future litigation rather than dismissing it outright, but it also streamlines judicial operations. Thus, it restricts just the suit's trial and not the institution.[6] This method preserves the parties' right to pursue legal action by allowing the second lawsuit to move forward after the first lawsuit is settled. The doctrine, however, is not absolute and does not apply in cases where the issues are not essentially the same or when the prior litigation is not actually pending.[7]

If the court determines that the following claim was brought with good intentions, on different grounds, or with a different remedy, it may decide to move forward with the first lawsuit notwithstanding the existence of another one. But this discretion is used sparingly, adhering to the rules of judicial economy and avoiding making contradictory rulings. Consequently, Section 10 of the CPC promotes both judicial efficiency and fairness by reflecting a well-balanced approach to managing the difficulties of civil litigation.

Limitations
Res sub judice may be an important weapon in a lawyer's armoury, but it does come with its own set of issues and exceptions. Noting these challenges and limitations is important when considering the practicality of utilizing this doctrine, as well as assessing how it may function within legal proceedings. One of the main constraints is that this requires cases to be identified accurately and specifically as ones involving "the same matter directly and substantially.

It is a complicated and subjective decision whether the issues of two suits are similar enough, which can create inconsistencies in judicial rulings. Decisions on the scope of substantial similarity are largely left to individual courts, which can lead either to a doctrinal overreach or an underapplication, damaging both litigants' interests and judicial economy.[8]

The possibility of abuse by litigants is one of res sub-judice's limitations. In order to stall the settlement of disputes or obtain an unfair advantage, parties may purposefully file many cases or participate in forum shopping. This may result in the doctrine being used incorrectly, undermining its goal of advancing judicial finality and efficiency. A further constraint is the possible influence of res sub judice on the accessibility of justice, namely for litigants who are marginalized or poor. The use of res sub judice may occasionally cause unwarranted delays or extra expenses, which may disproportionately impact people or organizations with low incomes.

A careful balance between the principles of res sub-judice and the requirement for fair access to justice for everyone is necessary to ensure that the doctrine does not unintentionally create barriers to justice. In addition, there may be additional challenges in applying the res sub judice principles in international or cross-border cases.

It can be difficult to coordinate procedures and guarantee that res sub judice is applied consistently across jurisdictions; this may call for the collaboration of several courts or legal systems. International coordination and collaboration are needed to meet the problem of harmonizing the res subjudice procedures and principles in these kinds of cases.

The prerequisite that the prior lawsuit be ongoing in a court with jurisdiction presents another big obstacle. Issues of jurisdiction can be divisive, particularly when several courts' authorities overlap. Determining the court's competence in a previous lawsuit can result in drawn-out jurisdictional conflicts, which would hinder the resolution of the future lawsuit and undermine the efficiency that the doctrine seeks to accomplish.

Lastly, even though the doctrine seeks to avoid contradictory rulings, it does not deal with circumstances in which the previous lawsuit is ongoing or has been delayed for a variety of reasons, such as judicial backlog or procedural delays.[9] In such a case, the ensuing suit may be permanently stayed, depriving the parties of a timely opportunity to settle their differences.

Scope For Improvement
There is significant scope for improvement to enhance its efficacy and address existing challenges. The following areas outline potential improvements:

1. Clearer Guidelines and Definitions: Defining "directly and substantially the same matter" more precisely to help prevent arbitrary interpretations and guarantee consistent application in all courts. Judges and attorneys might be helped in comprehending the specific application of the doctrine by providing in-depth illustrations or case studies in legal texts or judicial interpretations.
    
2. Centralized Case Management System: Putting in place a digital case management system that is centralized could greatly improve the doctrine's effectiveness. A system like this would lessen the possibility of oversight by making it simple for courts to detect ongoing lawsuits involving the same parties and concerns. All courts could have access to this database, guaranteeing that no lawsuit moves forward in defiance of Section 10.
    
3. Stricter Measures to Prevent Abuse: Its efficacy could be increased by enacting stronger regulations to stop the theory from being abused as a means of creating delays. Parties should be discouraged from misusing the concept by putting in place mechanisms like sanctions for pointless invocations of Section 10 or expedited hearings for cases suspected of purposeful delays.
    
4. Focus on Access to Justice: Ensuring that access to justice is not jeopardized is crucial when maintaining the principles of res sub-judice, especially for litigants who are marginalized or disadvantaged. Courts ought to take action to relieve these plaintiffs of any unwarranted obligations or difficulties; these actions could include granting legal aid, streamlining procedural procedures, and attending to their particular needs.

Conclusion
In a nutshell, there is much room for improvement, even if the theory of res sub-judice under Section 10 of the CPC is essential for preserving efficiency and order in the legal system. The philosophy can be reinforced to better accomplish its goals by embracing technical and procedural changes and concentrating on specific improvements. In the long run, these initiatives will contribute to an efficient, just, and fair legal system in India by preventing the complexities of needless litigation from interfering with the administration of justice.

End Notes:

1. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Act No. 5, § 10.
2. Ajay Pal Singh, Res Judicata: A Legitimate Exclusion in Rejection of a Plaint, 26 SUPREMO AMICUS [13] (2021).
3. Ganesh Makam, Doctrines in Res Sub Judice: A Comprehensive Review of the Civil Procedure Code in India, SSRN (Feb 17, 2023), https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4484556.
4. Aspi Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor, (2013) 4 SCC 333.
5. Bhagubai Shankar Jarande v. Shankar Bhausaheb Khaire, (2022) SCC Bom 9373.
6. Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Coop. Mktg. Federation Bank Ltd., (1998) 5 SCC 69.
7. National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, (2005) 2 SCC 256.
8. Supra note 2.
9. Bhupinder Singh, M. Arora & Sahil Lal, Tracing the Doctrines of Res Sub Judice and Res Judicata: A Comprehensive Review, 7 JLTPCL (2024).