• Sec.10 of the CPC deals with Res Subjudice while Sec.11 deals with Res judicata.
  • Res Subjudice says 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 and the Court in which the previous suit is pending is competent to grant the relief granted. Res Judicata says that no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and subsantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a competent court to try such subsequent suit or the suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court.
  • Res Subjudice applies to a matter pending trial. Res Judicata applies to a matter adjudicated upon.
  • Res Subjudice stays the trial of the suit/issue which is pending decision in a previously instituted suit. Resjudicata bars the trial of a suit or issue which has been decided in the former suit.

    Post a Comment

    1. Good writing....if more distinction is added then it will be more better than before...

    2. still its incoherent..i need to know more regarding constructive and collateral in issue under res judicata and some maxims related to it..

    3. Some of the maxims of Res Judicata
      Interest republicae ut sit finis litium ( It is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a litigation)
      Nemo debet lis vaxari pro uno et eadem causa (No man should be vexed twice for the same cause)
      Res judicata pro veritate occipitur (A judicial decision must be accepted as correct)
      Explanation IV of the Res Judicata explains constructive Res judicata. It is based on 'might and ought' principle. Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
      When we co-relate the above explanation to the maxims it is very clear that the principle behind the explanation is to compel the plaintiff to take all claims and allegations against the defendant in the first suit. A later suit based on such allegations is barred as per the explanation because when deciding on merit with the later allegations which ought to have made in the previous suit, a different decision in conflict with the previous decision is possible. So its all provided for doing justice and based on justice.

    4. nice right there

    5. it is same as copy into book still that mixims is not clear and no example is given in above mizims

    6. Muhammad yousaf khiljiJanuary 2, 2012 at 2:21 AM

      not use clear and obvious language .please explain it clear with easy illustration thanks

    7. i am no more confuse after reading this.

    8. thanx .... ms. omana for making the concept more clear


    Do not use abusive language