Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Vandna Singh – Appellant
Versus
Addl. District Judge, Court No. 1, Faizabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 and Sri Saurabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.
2. By means of present petition, a challenge has been made to the judgment and order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Faizabad in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2018 (Smt. Vandana Singh & Others Vs. Smt. Kokila Singh & Others) which was filed against the judgment and order dated 09.10.2018 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Faizabad in M.N.R. No.82 of 2014 (Smt. Kokila vs. State of U.P.). A challenge has also been made to the order dated 09.10.2018 which was assailed in the Appeal No. 56 of 2018.
3. The prayer No. (ii) is consequential to main prayer sought in the petition, which on reproduction, reads as under:-
Point of Law : The expression 'Res Sub-Judice' is Latin maxim which means “under judgment”. The rule of the Sub-Judice is based on the public policy which prohibits the plaintiff to file two parallel....
The fundamental test for the application of Section 10 of the CPC is the complete identity of subject matter in both suits, and the reliefs sought, cause of action, and subject matter must be identic....
Section 6(5) is a narrow saving clause not a jurisdictional bar; res judicata applies to successive Order VII Rule 11 applications; daughters retain independent Section 8 succession rights unaffected....
Section 10 CPC mandates stay of subsequent suit if issues directly/substantially same as prior pending suit between same parties on common property/cause challenging prior decree, preventing parallel....
The court clarified the application of Section 10 of CPC, emphasizing that only substantively identical issues warrant a stay to prevent parallel proceedings.
Merely because the evidence of respondent/defendant and Prabhakar Rao (PW-2) was not repeated all over again, it cannot be held that the appellant/ plaintiff could be non-suited on this ground.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
