STAY OF SUIT (DOCTRINE OF RES SUB JUDICE) :
Section 10 provides that 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) having 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.
However, 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.
To prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of same matter in issue, Section 10 is enacted. The purpose is also to avoid conflict of decision. It is really intended to give effect to the rule of res judicata. The institution of second suit is not barred by Section 10. It merely says that the trial cannot be proceeded with.
Even though if a case is not governed by the provisions of the Section and matters in issue may not be identical, yet the courts have inherent powers to stay suit on principle analogous to Section 10.
Essential conditions for stay of suits are :
(i) There must be two suits instituted at different times;
(ii) The matter in issue in the later suit should be directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit;
(iii) Such suit should be between the same parties;
(iv) Such earlier suit is still pending either in the same Court or in any other competent Court but not before a foreign Court.
If these conditions exist, the later suit should be stayed till the disposal of earlier suit, the findings of which operate as res judicata on the later suit.
For the applicability of Section 10, the two proceedings must be suits e.g. suit for eviction of tenant in a rent control statute cannot be sought to be stayed under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code on the ground that tenant has earlier filed a suit for specific performance against the landlord on the basis of agreement of sale of disputed premises in favour of the tenant.
In such a case, it cannot be said that the matter in earlier suit for specific performance is directly and substantially in issue in later suit for eviction. The reason is that a suit for specific performance of contract has got nothing to do with the question regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant.
Regarding the inherent powers under Section 151, these would also not be used for staying the eviction suit as the same would frustrate the very purpose of the legislation. Therefore, invoking the powers of the Court under this Section, on the facts and circumstances of the case amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court and there can be no doubt that such a course cannot be said to subserve the ends of the justice (N.P. Tripathi v. Dayamanti Devi, AIR 1988 Pat. 123).