An order granting a stay of a suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and is therefore appealable.

Headnote:
STAY OF SUIT - SECTION 10 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - PREVIOUSLY INSTITUTED SUIT - SUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY OF ISSUES - PARTIAL STAY OF SUIT - APPEALABILITY OF ORDER - JUDGMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE 15 OF THE LETTERS PATENT.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs sold and delivered machinery to the defendants. The defendants paid part of the price and executed promissory notes for the balance. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the Bombay High Court to recover the balance of the price. The defendants filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court, claiming damages for breach of contract. The defendants applied for a stay of the Bombay suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial judge granted a stay of the suit except in respect of two small claims.
Finding of the Court:

The Bombay High Court held that the Calcutta suit was previously instituted and that the matters in issue in the two suits were substantially the same. The court also held that a partial stay of the suit was permissible. The court further held that the order granting a stay was a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and was therefore appealable.
Issues: 1. Whether the Calcutta suit was previously instituted. 2. Whether the matters in issue in the two suits were substantially the same. 3. Whether a partial stay of the suit was permissible. 4. Whether the order granting a stay was a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Calcutta suit was previously instituted because it was filed one day before the Bombay suit. 2. The court held that the matters in issue in the two suits were substantially the same because both suits related to the same contract and the same machinery. 3. The court held that a partial stay of the suit was permissible because the two claims that were not stayed were not related to the main issue in the suit. 4. The court held that the order granting a stay was a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent because it determined the right of the plaintiffs to sue in the Bombay High Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

JUDGMENT - K.K. Desai, J.

1. This is the plaintiffs appeal from the order dated March 30, 1966, passed by Mr. Justice Mody on the defendants Notice of Motion dated February 11, 1966, whereby the Summary Suit No.4 of 1966 was stayed pending the hearing and final disposal of the defendants Suit No. 2270 of 1965 in the High Court at Calcutta with liberty to the plaintiffs to proceed with their above suit in so far as it concerned the plaintiffs two claims of Rs. 5000/~ and Rs. 582/-. The costs of the Notice of Motion were made costs in the cause.

2. The relevant facts are as follows:

3. In March 1963 the plaintiffs sold and the defendants purchased from the plaintiffs Hoe Rotary Printing Machine for the price of Rs 2,50,000. Originally, the defendants had executed in favour of the plaintiffs Bankers a demand promissory note thereunder promising to pay the said price along with interest at 71/2 per cent per annum. The plaintiffs demanded payment of the price repeatedly by correspondence which forms part of the annexures to the plaint. The promissory note executed in favour of the plaintiffs Bankers was in August 1964 substituted by a demand promissory note for the above sum of Rs. 2,50,000 and interest at 71/2 % per annum directly in favour of the plaintiffs. That promissory note was antedated May 30, 1963, and a copy of that promissory note is Ex. D to the plaint. The defendants paid three respective amounts of Rupees 2,000 each respectively on June 15, October 29 and December 31, 1964, to the plaintiffs towards interest payable in respect of the above price. On December 11, 1964, the plaintiffs sold and delivered three Inter-Type Machines of the value of Rs. 5,000 to the defendants. In March 1965, at the instance of the defendants the plaintiffs deputed their employee one P. M. Rajgopalan from Bombay to Calcutta in connection with the working of the machinery and thereby incurred the expense of Rs. 582. The defendants paid further amount of Rs. 2,000 for interest on March 29, 1965. They further paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards the debt of the price and the promissory note on August 12, 1965. In spite of repeated demands made in correspondence, the defendants failed to make further payments. As the defendants failed to make further payments, the plaintiffs ultimately filed the above Suit No.4 of 1966 on the Original Side of this Court for recovering the aggregate sum of Rupees 1,92,684.72 in respect of the price of the machineries delivered and the expense of Rs. 582 incurred. The plaintiffs claimed interest at the rate of 71/2 per cent per annum from December 16, 1965.

4. In December 1965 the defendants filed their Suit No. 2270 of 1965 in the High Court at Calcutta. The defendants thereafter proceeded to take out the Notice of Motion dated February 11, 1966, for stay of the trial of the plaintiffs above suit until the disposal of the defendants suit at Calcutta. By an ex parte application made on February 10, 1966, the defendants obtained an order of an interim stay of the plaintiffs suit pending the hearing of their Notice of Motion. The defendants had filed their appearance in the plaintiffs suit and but for the above ad interim injunction the plaintiffs would have in accordance with the rules governing summary suits proceeded to take out a summons for judgment in connection with the claim made in the suit. Ordinarily, the defendants would have on such summons for judgment by affidavit in reply shown cause and indicated their defence to the suit and applied for leave to defend the suit. The plaintiffs were prevented from taking out the summons for judgment because the defendants had obtained ad interim injunction as mentioned above. The plaintiffs filed their affidavit in reply on the defendants Notice of Motion on February 5, 1966 and took out a Notice of Motion dated March 8, 1966, claiming that pending the hearing of the plaintiffs suit the defendants should be restrained by an order of injunction from proceeding with their

Click Here to Read the rest of this document