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 cases on the same subject matter and restricts the chances of having two contradictory judgments by the two courts. The purpose of the doctrine of Res Sub-Judice is to prevent a multiplicity of the proceedings and to refrain two conflicting decisions.

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:-

"to issue an order or direction for setting aside 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. Vandna Singh and others Vs. Smt. Kokila Singh, together with the 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 and others, to the extent so far as it relates to grant of 1/5th share and issuance of Succession Certificate to that effect in favour of Smt.Kokila Singh, the opposite party No. 4, pertaining to Bank deposit amount of the deceased Ashwani Kumar Singh, as contained in Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to this petition."

4. Assailing the orders, above mentioned, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ashwani Kumar Singh, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 was maintaining his two accounts i.e. (i) Bank Account No. 200156 (Old) [New Account No. 56640100000520] of Faizabad Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Branch Zila Panchayat, Faizabad and (ii) Bank Account No. 01090051775 (Old) [New Account No. 10961469703] of State Bank of India, Faizabad. On 25.10.2006, the Ashwani Kumar Singh was murdered. Thereafter, a Misc. Case No. 422 of 2006 (Vandna Singh Vs. State), under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short "Act of 1925") was instituted by the petitioner(s). In this case, opposite No. 4 appeared and filed an objection. Subsequently, opposite party No.4-Smt. Kokila, mother of the deceased-Ashwani Kumar Singh, filed another case under Section 372 of Act of 1925 registered as M.N.R. No. 82 of 2014 (Smt. Kokila Vs. State and others) with regard to same Bank Accounts.

5. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 16.07.2015 and on coming to know about the said order, an application for restoration was preferred by the petitioners on 29.07.2015. On query being put, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case has not yet been restored to its original number and the next date fixed is 21.01.2022.

6. He submitted that during pendency of the application for restoration, Trial Court proceeded with the case i.e. M.N.R. Case No. 82 of 2014 and taking note of the fact that application for restoration of Misc. Case No. 422 of 2006 is pending, petitioners preferred an application under Section 10 of C.P.C. for staying the proceedings of the suit. However, the Trial Court without taking note of the facts pleaded in the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 10 C.P.C. as also the law on the issue proceeded with the matter and passed final order dated 09.10.2018.

7. He submitted that the Trial Court was under obligation to stay the proceedings of the case as the findings recorded by it would apply as res judicata in subsequent suits including the case filed by the petitioners, under Section 372 of the Act of 1925, in which restoration application is pending and the next date fixed therein is 21.01.2022.

8. In addition, it is stated that the findings rec