1. Carrier detained goods for unpaid transportation charges — Suit for recovery of goods — Application for stay of trial under Section 10 CPC. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 923
1996(5) Supreme 285
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, Faizan Uddin and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
British Indian Corporation Ltd. -Appellant
versus
M/s. Rashtraco Freight Carriers -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8995 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18720 of 1995)
Decided on 7-5-1996
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
When the causes of action are entirely different and there is no common issue directly or substantially in issue in both the suits, prayer for staying later suit cannot be allowed.
When the causes of action are entirely different and there is no common issue directly or substantially in issue in both the suits, prayer for staying later suit cannot be allowed.
Subject
Civil Law - Stay of Suit
Act Referred
Headnote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 10-Stay of suit-Appellant entrusted to respondent bales of raw wool as carriers for transportation-Respondent detained goods-They filed a suit for recovery of alleged dues payable by appellant-Appellant filed suit for recovery of goods lawfully entrusted to and unlawfully detained by respondent-Causes of action being entirely different-High Court committed error of law in staying later suit.
Held : Section 10 of CPC envisages that no 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 the 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 having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed. It is seen that the claim of the respondent in the suit No. 612/94 is for the recovery of the alleged dues said to be payable by the appellant-Corporation while the suit of the appellant is for recovery of the goods lawfully entrusted to and unlawfully detained by the respondent. The causes of action are entirely different. There is no common issue directly or substantially in issue in both the suits. (Para 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a suit for recovery of goods should be stayed under Section 10 CPC when a prior suit for recovery of transportation charges is pending. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Suit for recovery of dues and suit for recovery of goods involve different causes of action — No common issue directly or substantially in issue between the suits. (Para 4 )
4. Stay of suit under Section 10 CPC requires the matter in issue to be directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order of the High Court staying the later suit set aside. (Para 5 )
6. When can a court stay a suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
A court shall stay the trial of a suit if the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or parties under whom they claim, litigating under the same title, pending in a court with jurisdiction. (Para 4 )
7. Does a suit for recovery of dues constitute a common issue with a suit for recovery of detained goods?
No, the causes of action are entirely different; a claim for recovery of alleged dues is distinct from a claim for recovery of goods lawfully entrusted but unlawfully detained, meaning there is no common issue directly or substantially in issue. (Para 4 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. The appellant had entrusted to the respondent 147 bales of raw wools worth Rs. 51.48 lakhs as carriers for transportation to Cawnpore Woolen Mills. In spite of taking delivery thereof, the respondent had detained the goods in his custody, laid the suit O.S. No. 612/94 in the Civil Court at Kanpur for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from taking forcible possession of the goods with the allegation that a sum of Rs. 13,48,817.13 was due from the appellant towards arrears of transportation charges. The interim injunction sought for was initially granted but later on vacated. Ultimately, in appeal, the High Court directed the appellant to give bank guarantee to the tune of the amount purported to be due as pleaded for in the suit. We are informed that the bank guarantee has accordingly been given. The appellant entrusted taking of delivery of the possession of the goods to the carriers-respondent who laid the suit on July 1, 1994 and interim mandatory injunction was sought for and was granted.
3. These proceedings arise out of an application made under Section 10 CPC on September 19, 1994 seeking stay of the trial in O.S.793/94. The trial Court dismissed it, but the High Court in revision has directed stay of the suit. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
4. Section 10 of CPC envisages that no 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 the 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 having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed. It is seen that the claim of the respondent in the suit No. 612/94 is for the recovery of the alleged dues said to be payable by the appellant-Corporation while the suit of the appellant is for recovery of the goods lawfully entrusted to and unlawfully detained by the respondent. The causes of action are entirely different. There is no common issue directly or substantially in issue in both the suits. The High Court, therefore, committed gross error of law in staying the later suit.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the High Court dated 25th May, 1995 is set aside. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******
