Execution Proceedings-

-
  Execution Proceedings (Ss.47, 60, 122 Or.21 Rs.11, 98 & Or.11 R.14):- Executive Proceedings-Executing court must dispose of executive proceedings within six months from date of filing which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay. This would mean that every effort should be made to dispose of execution petition within said time-limit and executing court should have reasons for not being able to dispose of execution petition. Executing court is duty-bound to record reasons in writing when it is unable to dispose of matter within six months (Bhoj Raj Garg vs Goyal Education & Welfare Society: (2025) 9 SCC-618.
Post a Comment

Res Sub Judice:-

-

 

Res Sub Judice:-

Section 10 CPC relates to Res sub judice,a matter which is pending a judicial adjudication. Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice are two fundamental legal doctrines under civil procedure law designed to prevent the abuse of the judicial system and ensure the efficient administration of justice. The core distinction is that Res Judicata applies to a matter that has already been finally decided, whereas Res Sub Judice applies to a matter that is currently pending trial.

 

Comparison Table

 

Feature

Res Sub Judice

Res Judicata

Literal Meaning

"Under judgment" or under judicial consideration.

"A matter judged" or a thing already decided.

Legal Provision

Section 10 of the CPC.

Section 11 of the CPC.

Status of Former Suit

The previous suit must be pending in a court.

The previous suit must be finally decided.

Primary Objective

To prevent parallel proceedings and duplicate trials.

To prevent re-litigation and bring finality to a dispute.

Direct Impact

It stays the trial of the subsequently filed suit.

It completely bars the trial or filing of the subsequent suit.

Risk Mitigated

Avoids conflicting judgments by two different courts.

Avoids infinite litigation and harassment of a party twice.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Applicability of CPC & Limitation Act in Writ Proceedings:-

-
  Applicability of CPC & Limitation Act in Writ Proceedings:-   The issue concerning applicability of the provisions of the CPC in the writ proceedings is no longer res integra in view clear pronouncement made by the Supreme Court in “ Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others” reported in (1996) 2 SCC-205 , wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with an issue as to whether the provisions contained under Order 22 of the CPC are applicable to proceedings under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The question as to whether provisions of the Act, 1963 would apply in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also no longer res integra in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in “Smt. Sudama Devi v Commissioner and others ” reported in (1983) 2 SCC-1.  
Read more

golden principles of circumstantial evidence

-
                 In “ Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra” :AIR 1984 SC-1622,the SC elaborated the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence laid down in Hanumant Vs.State of MP:AIR 1952 SC-343 which has been strictly abided by the SC itself in various leading cases and therefore are very important. 1.      The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. 2.      The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt. 3.      The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 4.      They should exlcude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 5.      There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that...
Read more

Sentence less than Minimum Sentence:-

-
  Sentence less than Minimum Sentence:-                    In “ State of MP vs Vikram Das ” reported in (2019) 4 SCC-125,the Supreme Court has held that awarding sentence less than the minimum sentence is impressibility .                    In “ State v. Ratan Lal Arora” : (2004) 4 SCC-590, the Supreme  Court of India said that in cases where an enactment enacted after the Probation Act prescribes minimum sentence of imprisonment, the provisions of the Probation Act cannot be invoked.                  
Read more