B.B.A L.L.

B (HONS)
2023

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND LIMITATIONS

“CASE COMMENT”

SUBMITTED BY: AKHIL KUPPUSAMY. K

REGISTRATION NUMBER: 21BLB1048
SUBMITTED TO: PROF. SANTOSH. V
COURSE CODE : LAW3104
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

s.no title Page no

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. ORIGIN OF RES SUBJUDICE 1-2

3. DOCTRINE OF RES SUBJUDICE 2

4. FACTS IN BRIEF 3

5. APPLICATON OF RES SUBJUDICE 3

6. CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECT 3-4

7. IMPACT 4

M/s. Gupte Cardiac Care Centre and Hospital v. Olympic Pharma Care

Pvt Ltd (2004)

2004 2 BJLR 1095

(Decided on 6th April 2004)

INTRODUCTION

The legal system in India consisting of various courts, tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies
have been tasked with an important duty of upholding justice and providing it in a speedy
manner. Right to Speedy trial is under the ambit of Article 21 of the constitution which
ensures that no person shall be deprived of their life and personal liberty. In criminal cases, it
is not practical or fair to proceed with a speedy trial with the aim of blindly and recklessly
convicting the accused. This is because of the nature of penalties involved in a criminal trial
which includes imprisonment for extended periods of time and even possibly for life, death,
registration into offenders list, stigma that comes with being a criminal etc… civil cases on
the other hand need to be adjudicated as soon as possible so that compensation or relief
claimed by the plaintiff can be delivered to them at the earliest. Since both parties represent
themselves in a civil case, it is important that the suit doesn’t get extended by either of the
parties by exploiting various loopholes in the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908. As per the
statistics posted by the supreme court of India, there are 63,310 matters pending before the
court as of 01.05.2023.1 The loopholes being the provisions in which discretionary power is
given to court on certain matters such as in appearance of parties and consequence of non-
appearance as per order 9 where the court has the discretion to accept the party’s excuse for
not appearing if it thinks fit. One of the remedies for speeding up trials and saving the time of
the court is adopting the doctrines of res subjudice and res judicata in the CPC in section 10
and section 11 respectively.

ORIGIN OF RES SUBJUDICE

It is derived from the English legal system through common law or decided case laws. It has
been developed under the principles of justice equity and good conscience to not vex the
same party twice for the same cause or to bring the same case to be adjudicated by the same
judicial system twice.

DOCTRINE OF RES SUBJUDICE

The notion of res subjudice was mentioned in the judgement of Suleiman Enterprises vs.
Dubai Bank Kenya Limited (2021), where the judgement of Nyanza Garage v Attorney
General Kampala, 1993 was used to explain the doctrine of res subjudice. In the latter case,
the court held said that "In the interest of parties and the system of administration of justice,
multiplicity of suits between the same parties and over the same subject matter is to be

1
Statistics, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA https://main.sci.gov.in/statistics. (May 1st 2023)

1
avoided. It is in the interest of the parties because the parties are kept at a minimum both in
terms of time and money spent on a matter that could be resolved in one suit. Secondly, a
multiplicity of suits clogs the wheels of justice, holding up resources that would be available
to fresh matters, and creating and or adding to the backlog of cases Courts have to deal with.
Parties would be well advised to avoid a multiplicity of suits."2

From the judgement, the need of res subjudice can be understood as follows :

 To avoid multiplicity of proceedings

 To save time and resource of the court
 To save time and resources of the parties
 To make resources available for fresh suits
 To avoid redundancy of facts, evidence, witnesses
 To reduce backlog and pendency of cases

The elements of res subjudice are clearly defined under section 10 of the CPC under stay of
suit. The elements are :

 Matter in issue is Direct and substantial in both suits

 One suit must have been instituted after the other
 Same parties under the same title
 Courts are of competent jurisdiction to grant relief

FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF

Gupte cardiac centre was dissatisfied with the heart and lung machine received from Olympic
pharma care and instituted a suit in Nashik for recovery of ₹2,835,000 on 20 th December
2001. Olympic pharma care filed a suit against hospital on 10 th January 2002 for balance
price of the machine delivered with interest in Delhi. The plaintiff in the Nashik suit and
defendant in the Delhi suit (Gupte cardiac centre) wanted the case in Delhi to be transferred
to Nashik while the Plaintiff in the Delhi suit and defendant in the Nashik Suit (Olympic
pharma care) wanted the case to be transferred from Nashik to Delhi.

APPLICATION OF RES SUBJUDICE

Ruling in favour of one party in one of the suits would automatically mean that it has been
ruled against the opposite party in the other suit. Both suits deserve to be heard and hearing
2
Suleiman Enterprises Limited vs. Dubai Bank Kenya Limited MANU/KEHC/6617/2021

2
both of them would mean that there is duplication of evidence, documents, witnesses as well
as wastage of time and energy of the courts and the parties. Res subjudice was applied in this
case with the discretionary power of the court and the case in Delhi was transferred to the
Nashik court. The trial in Nashik was the former suit and trial in Delhi was the latter suit with
respect to which suit was instituted first. The subject matter is the heart and lung machine in
both cases and the relief sought for matter in issue is substantially and directly the same.
Thus, the suit instituted at Delhi was transferred to Nashik.

The court had also identified the considerations to be kept in mind while determining the
applicability of section 10 of the cpc which are as follows :

 Place where most of the evidence is available

 Convenience of parties and witnesses for appearance
 Accessibility to the parties
 Facts and circumstances of the case

CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECT

Res-subjudice can be related with the provision for double jeopardy under the constitution of
India. Article 20(2) under fundamental rights states that a person cannot be tried twice for the
same offence based on their act or conduct. 3 Double jeopardy is applicable to criminal trials
and the object of the provision is to avoid severe and unjust punishment but it also indirectly
alleviates the stress on the courts to go through with the same trial multiple times. Similarly
for civil cases, applying res subjudice directly reduces pendency of cases but also eliminates
the possibility of the same relief granted twice or the defendant being asked to compensate
twice.

IMPACT OF THE CASE

This case was referred to in Padmabai vs. Shiakh Shadulla Sk Abdulla and ors. (2009) was
about a property dispute. Both cases were about the same subject matter being Sauda Pavti.
Therefore, res subjudice was applied to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 4 Similarly in A.
Ananya v. K.V.L. Jayasimha (2020), The respondent was 18 months old when property was
purchased with her grandmother as the guardian. In the second suit, The respondent was
litigating under the same title of B. 5 The court cited Gupte cardiac centre case to apply res
3
India Const. art. 19, cl. 1(a).
4
Padmabai vs. Shiakh Shadulla Sk Abdulla and ors. MANU/MH/1012/2009
5
K.V.L. Jayasimha vs, A. Ananya MANU/SCOR/39004/2020

3
subjudice and stay the second suit. These cases further prove that res subjudice is a necessary
provision under the code of civil procedure.