Key Points: - The doctrine of res sub judice mandates a stay on subsequent suits concerning the same material issues as an earlier suit to prevent conflicting judgments (!) (!) (!) - Section 10 CPC stays a suit if the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or their successors (!) (!) - The purpose of Section 10 CPC is to prevent trials on concurrent issues to avoid conflicting decisions; it is a mandatory provision (!) (!) - The test for invoking Section 10 is whether the findings in the earlier suit would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit (!) (!) (!) - In this case, the material issue was possession and validity in partition proceedings, which were directly and substantially involved in both suits; hence the stay of the subsequent suit was upheld (!) (!) - Trial Court’s stay of the later suit was affirmed and the petition was dismissed for lack of merit (!) (!) - The earlier suit involved partition orders and possession issues; the later suit sought decree of permanent injunction based on alleged possession delivered during partition (!) (!) - The decision references Dunlop India Ltd. v. A. A. Rahna & Anr. as part of the precedential framework for Section 10 CPC (!)

How to determine whether a subsequent suit should be stayed under Section 10 CPC due to the same matter being directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit?

What is the effect of a prior final decision on a matter that is directly and substantially in issue in a later suit?

What are the mandatory and objective considerations in applying res sub judice under Section 10 CPC as reflected in this judgment?