{"id":466,"date":"2021-06-08T11:12:25","date_gmt":"2021-06-08T05:42:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/?p=466"},"modified":"2026-10-25T19:31:33","modified_gmt":"2026-10-25T14:01:33","slug":"legal-maxim-of-the-day-14","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-14\/","title":{"rendered":"Lis Alibi Pendens: Meaning, Lis in Law and Section 10 CPC (Res Sub Judice)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Lis alibi pendens<\/strong> is a Latin phrase meaning “a suit pending elsewhere”<\/strong>. In India the idea is put into law by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)<\/strong>, usually called the rule of res sub judice<\/em>: no court “shall proceed with the trial” of a later suit if the matter in issue is “also directly and substantially in issue” in a previously instituted suit between the same parties pending in a court competent to grant the relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The result is a stay of the trial of the later suit, not its dismissal<\/strong>. The Supreme Court has said that Section 10 “is not a bar to the institution of a suit” and does not stop the court from passing interlocutory orders such as an injunction or the appointment of a receiver (Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation<\/em>, 1998).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Lis alibi pendens at a glance<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Meaning:<\/strong> “a suit pending elsewhere”; lis<\/em> is the suit or dispute between the parties.<\/li>\n
  • Indian law:<\/strong> Section 10 CPC, “Stay of suit” (res sub judice).<\/li>\n
  • When it applies:<\/strong> the whole matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in an earlier suit between the same parties, pending in a court competent to grant the relief; test: would the earlier decision be res judicata in the later suit? (Section 10; Aspi Jal<\/em>, 2013).<\/li>\n
  • Effect:<\/strong> the court shall not proceed with the trial of the later suit; the suit is stayed, not dismissed, and interim orders can still be made (Indian Bank<\/em>, 1998).<\/li>\n
  • Foreign suit:<\/strong> does not stop Indian courts from trying a suit on the same cause of action (Explanation to Section 10).<\/li>\n
  • Not the same as:<\/strong> res judicata (Section 11 CPC, a suit already decided) or lis pendens (Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, transfers of property during a suit).<\/li>\n
  • Hindi:<\/strong> the official Hindi CPC heads Section 10 “\u0935\u093e\u0926 \u0915\u093e \u0930\u094b\u0915 \u0926\u093f\u092f\u093e \u091c\u093e\u0928\u093e”.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

    Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi \u2013 October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is quoted from India Code (as on 10 January 2026) and its official Hindi text on India Code, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from India Code (as on 15 April 2026), the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 from India Code (as on 1 June 2026), the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 from India Code, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from India Code (as on 6 October 2025), the Constitution from the Legislative Department’s 2026 edition, and the Supreme Court judgments from the Court’s own copies on api.sci.gov.in.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What does lis alibi pendens mean?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Word by word, in the firm’s translation of the Latin: lis<\/em> is a lawsuit or dispute, alibi<\/em> means elsewhere, and pendens<\/em> means pending. It is raised as an objection by a defendant sued a second time over a dispute already pending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Supreme Court has said that Section 10 CPC is meant “to pin down the plaintiff to one litigation so as to avoid the possibility of contradictory verdicts by two courts in respect of the same relief and is aimed to protect the defendant from multiplicity of proceeding” (Aspi Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor<\/em>, 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What does “lis” mean in law?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    In law, lis<\/strong> means a suit, case or dispute between parties. The Supreme Court uses it in this sense: “In a judgment there will be declaration of law and its application to the facts of the case to render a decision on the dispute between the parties to the lis” (Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra<\/em>, 2002). So “the lis between the parties” simply means the case or controversy between them, and “a party to the lis” is a party to that case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Lis pendens<\/em> (“a pending suit”) is the rule in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 about property transferred while a suit is pending (see, for example, Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi<\/em>, 2024, where the Supreme Court directed that any further transfer of the suit property “shall be subject to lis pendens under Section 52 of the T.P. Act”). Lis alibi pendens<\/em> adds the word “elsewhere”: the concern is not a transfer of property but a second case on the same dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Is “alibi” here the same as the alibi defence?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Only in the sense of the Latin word: “alibi” means elsewhere. In a criminal case the plea of alibi is that the accused was elsewhere; the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 makes such a fact relevant (Section 9, illustration (a), formerly Section 11 of the Evidence Act: “The fact that, on that day, A was at Ladakh is relevant”). In lis alibi pendens it is the suit<\/em> that is elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Section 10 CPC: the rule of res sub judice in India<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The text of Section 10, as published on India Code (as on 10 January 2026), reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    “10. Stay of suit.\u2014No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Explanation.\u2014The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    India Code prints “have jurisdiction”; the Supreme Court’s quotation of the section in Aspi Jal<\/em> (2013) reads “having jurisdiction”. The words “India”, “the Central Government” and “the Supreme Court” were substituted by Act 2 of 1951 and by the Adaptation Orders of 1937 and 1950, and the words “or the Crown Representative” were omitted by the Adaptation Order of 1948; India Code’s footnotes to Section 10 show no other amendment. The phrase res sub judice<\/em> is not used in the section itself; it is the name commonly given to the rule, in contrast to res judicata<\/em> in Section 11.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Supreme Court has held that the negative wording “makes the provision mandatory”: once its conditions are satisfied, the court of the later suit “is prohibited from proceeding with the trial of that suit” (Aspi Jal<\/em>, 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Conditions for staying the later suit under Section 10<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Section 10 applies only when all four conditions are met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. Two suits, one instituted earlier<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    There must be a “previously instituted suit” that is still pending, and a later suit whose trial is to be stayed: the section looks at which suit was instituted first. Section 10 speaks of suits. In National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara<\/em> ((2005) 2 SCC 256), as quoted by the Supreme Court in Aspi Jal<\/em>, the Court said: “The language of Section 10 suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in the civil court and it cannot apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    2. The same matter directly and substantially in issue<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The matter in issue in the later suit must also be “directly and substantially in issue” in the earlier suit. In Aspi Jal<\/em> (2013) the Supreme Court held that “the entire subject-matter of the two suits must be the same. This provision will not apply where few of the matters in issue are common and will apply only when the entire subject matter in controversy is same. In other words, the matter in issue is not equivalent to any of the questions in issue.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The test is “whether on a final decision being reached in the previously instituted suit, such decision would operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit. To put it differently one may ask, can the plaintiff get the same relief in the subsequent suit, if the earlier suit has been dismissed? In our opinion, if the answer is in affirmative, the subsequent suit is not fit to be stayed.” It added that “when the matter in controversy is the same, it is immaterial what further relief is claimed in the subsequent suit.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In Aspi Jal<\/em> a landlord had sued for eviction for non-user in 2004 and again in 2010, for non-user in the six months before the new suit. The Supreme Court set aside the stay of the 2010 suit: the ground was similar, but the suits “were based on different causes”, so Section 10 was “not attracted”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    3. The same parties, or parties litigating under the same title<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Both suits must be “between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title”. So a person who claims under a party to the earlier suit, and litigates under the same title, is treated in the same way as that party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    4. The earlier suit is in a court competent to grant the relief<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The earlier suit must be pending in a court in India with jurisdiction “to grant the relief claimed”, in a court beyond India established or continued by the Central Government with like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court. As the Supreme Court put it, “the Court in which the previous suit is pending is competent to grant the relief claimed” (Aspi Jal<\/em>, 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n