Section 10 CPC

Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel clarified that Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) deals only with the stay of subsequent suits between the same parties on the same cause of action, and has no connection with the consolidation or clubbing of suits. 

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court held this in the matter of Hardeep Singh v/s Manohar Lal and others (2025). 

What was the Background of Hardeep Singh v. Manohar Lal and others (2025)  ? 

• The petitioner, Hardeep Singh, approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging an order dated 25th April 2023 passed by the Trial Court. 
• The petitioner was involved in multiple civil suits. There were suits filed by Manohar Lal against Hardeep Singh and others, by Manohar Lal against Gurmail Singh and another, by Manohar Lal against Smt. Rano Devi, and a suit filed by Hardeep Singh against Manohar Lal and others. 
• All these civil suits were pending before the Trial Court and involved common parties and overlapping issues. 
• The petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code before the Trial Court seeking consolidation and clubbing of all four civil suits together. 
• The petitioner's application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 25th April 2023. 
• The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that there exists no provision for clubbing of cases involving common issues. 
• The Trial Court held that the only relevant provision is Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which does not permit consolidation or clubbing of suits. 
• The petitioner challenged this order by filing a civil miscellaneous petition before the High Court. 
• Initially, the petitioner challenged two orders (Annexures P-7 and P-20), but later confined his challenge only to Annexure P-20 on technical grounds. 
• Respondent No.1, Manohar Lal, was represented through counsel, while respondents No.2, 4, 5 and 6 were ex parte. 
• Respondent No.3 was stated to be deceased. 
• The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order and prayed that the application for consolidation of suits be allowed. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court observed that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law. 
• The Court noted that the Trial Court had completely misdirected itself by holding that there is no concept of consolidation or clubbing of cases. 
• The Court clarified that Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code has nothing to do with the issue of clubbing or consolidating cases. 
• The Court explained that Section 10 relates to the principle of res subjudice, wherein a subsequent suit filed between the same parties on the same cause has to be stayed in light of the pendency of the earlier suit. 
• The Court held that clubbing and consolidation of cases is permissible when the parameters for doing so are met in terms of the prayer made. 
• The Court observed that consolidation of cases helps avoid multiplicity of recording of evidence and prevents adjudication in isolation of one dispute which may have bearing on another dispute. 
• The Court emphasised that whether cases should be consolidated depends upon the facts involved in the concerned cases. 
• The Court stated that there is no straitjacket formula that every such application has either to be allowed or rejected. 
• The Court held that the Trial Court erred in observing that there is no provision for clubbing or consolidation of cases. 
• In light of these observations, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 25th April 2023. 
• The Court ordered that the application filed for clubbing and consolidation of cases be revived. 
• The Court directed the Trial Court to decide the application afresh on the basis of the contents of the application. 
• The Court clarified that it had not made any observation on the merits of the application. 
• The Court directed that the application be decided by the Trial Court on its own merit in light of the reply filed by the other party. 
• The Court directed the parties through counsel to appear before the Trial Court on 17th November 2025. 
• The Court clarified that Annexure P-7 shall not come in the way of the Trial Court in deciding the application afresh on merit. 

What is Section 10 CPC,1908? 

• Core Definition 
  • Section 10 of CPC embodies the principle of Res sub judice (meaning "under judgment"), which prevents courts from proceeding with trials when the same matter is already pending adjudication elsewhere. 
• Main Provision 
  • No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit where the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties (or those claiming under them with the same title), when such prior suit is pending in the same or another competent court in India, or in certain courts beyond India established by the Central Government, or before the Supreme Court. 
• Scope and Application: 
  • Applies only to suits (including appeals), not to applications and complaints 
  • "Matter in issue" refers to the entire matter in controversy, not merely individual issues 
  • The pendency of a suit in a foreign court does not bar Indian courts from trying a suit on the same cause of action 
• Nature of the Bar: 
  • Bars the trial of a suit, not its institution 
  • The subsequent suit must be stayed, not dismissed 
  • The provisions are mandatory with no judicial discretion 
  • Stay can be ordered at any stage of proceedings 
• Objectives: 
  • Prevents parallel litigation on the same cause of action and subject matter 
  • Avoids frivolous litigation 
  • Saves judicial time and resources for both the State and litigants 
• Essential Conditions 
  • Six conditions must be satisfied simultaneously: 
  • Two suits must exist - one previously instituted, one subsequently instituted 
  • The matter in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit 
  • Both suits must be between the same parties or their representatives 
  • Parties must be litigating under the same title in both suits 
  • The previous suit must be pending in a competent court (same court, another Indian court, specified foreign court, or Supreme Court) 
  • The court hearing the previous suit must have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit 
• Legal Consequences 
  • A decree passed in violation of Section 10 is not void and cannot be disregarded in execution proceedings 
  • The section establishes a procedural rule that can be waived by a party 
  • Filing an application under Section 10 does not prevent the court from examining the case merits 
  • When Section 10 applies, courts should not invoke inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC