The stay of a suit under section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 operates only in so far as the final decision of the suit is concerned and does not deprive the Civil Court from passing orders on interim applications and granting interlocutory reliefs such as interim injunction or attachment before judgment, provided that such orders do not involve the determination of any issue required to be determined by the competent authority under the Act.

Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 10 - STAY OF SUIT - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS(VIDARBHA REGION) ACT, 1958 - SECTION 125 - STAY OF SUIT INVOLVING TENANCY ISSUE - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT TO GRANT TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - INTERPRETATION OF "TRIAL" - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 10 TO INTERIM APPLICATIONS - SCOPE OF STAY UNDER SECTION 125.
Fact of the Case:

Two suits were filed between the same parties, one for a permanent injunction restraining interference with possession of agricultural lands and the other for a permanent injunction restraining interference with possession of the same lands. In the first suit, the issue of tenancy was referred to the competent authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (the Act). The trial court in the second suit granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff, despite the pendency of the first suit and the referral of the tenancy issue. The applicants, who were defendants in the second suit, challenged the grant of the temporary injunction, arguing that the suit should have been stayed under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and section 125 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

1. Section 10 of the CPC is mandatory and requires the trial court to stay the trial of a suit if another suit between the same parties and involving the same subject matter is pending. However, the word "trial" in section 10 should be interpreted in a narrow sense, referring to the final hearing of the suit, and not in a wider sense encompassing all proceedings from the institution of the plaint to the pronouncement of the decision. 2. The stay of a suit under section 125 of the Act operates only in so far as the final decision of the suit is concerned and does not deprive the Civil Court from passing orders on interim applications and granting interlocutory reliefs such as interim injunction or attachment before judgment, provided that such orders do not involve the determination of any issue required to be determined by the competent authority under the Act. 3. In determining whether to grant a temporary injunction, the Civil Court is primarily concerned with the question of who is in actual possession of the suit property at the time of the institution of the suit, rather than the title or capacity in which the person claiming possession holds the property. The question of tenancy is not material at this stage and does not need to be decided for the purpose of granting a temporary injunction.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in granting a temporary injunction in the second suit despite the pendency of the first suit and the referral of the tenancy issue to the competent authority. 2. Whether section 10 of the CPC and section 125 of the Act barred the Civil Court from granting the temporary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The trial court did not err in entertaining the application for injunction and passing orders on it, even though the second suit was a latter suit and might come within the mischief of section 10 of the CPC. The word "trial" in section 10 should be interpreted in a narrow sense, referring to the final hearing of the suit, and not in a wider sense encompassing all proceedings from the institution of the plaint to the pronouncement of the decision. Therefore, the trial court was competent to entertain the application for injunction and pass orders on it. 2. The stay of a suit under section 125 of the Act operates only in so far as the final decision of the suit is concerned and does not deprive the Civil Court from passing orders on interim applications and granting interlocutory reliefs such as interim injunction or attachment before judgment, provided that such orders do not involve the determination of any issue required to be determined by the competent authority under the Act. In this case, the grant of a temporary injunction did not involve the determination of the tenancy issue, which was referred to the competent authority. Therefore, the trial court was not barred from granting the temporary injunction.
Final Decision: The revision application was partly allowed, and the order passed by the Courts below with regard to the temporary injunction was modified to the effect that it shall not apply to the cattle shed or residential hut which is in occupation of the applicants.

JUDGMENT - GINWALA A.A., J.: - This revision application has been filed against the order passed by the learned Joint Judge of Akola in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1975 dismissing appeal of the applicants against the order of the trial Court passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 167 of 1972 granting temporary injunction against them restraining them from interfering with the possession of the suit fields.

2. The subject-matter of this litigation consists of two agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 35 and 36/2 situated at Gondeshwar inakola district. These lands admittedly belong to non-applicant No. 1. On 12th July, 1972 the present applicants had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 105 of 1972 against the present non-applicant No. 1 and Vithal for a permanent injunction restraining these two defendants from interfering with their possession and cultivation, of the suit lands. It appears that the applicants had also prayed for temporary injunction in the suit and an ex pane temporary injunction was granted. However, it was vacated after the defendants appeared in the suit and contested it. An appeal was preferred against the vacation of the stay but that appeal was also dismissed. In that suit the applicants claimed that one Haribhau who was the husband of applicant No. 1 and further of applicant Nos. 2 and 4 had been cultivating suit lands as tenants for the last 10 to 12 years till his death and that after his death, the applicants had become tenants in respect of the suit lands as heirs of Haribhau and were as such cultivating thern. They alleged that non-applicant No. 1 was interfering with their possession and was trying to oust them. It is on these allegations that they sought the temporary and permanent injunctions. It appears that non-applicant No. 1 appeared in that suit and denied the claim of the applicants to be the tenants of the suit land and on this contention an issue was raised as to whether the applicants were tenants of the suit lands. This issue regarding tenancy had been referred to the competent authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 14th December, 1973.

3. I am told that the competent authority has not yet decided the issue which has been referred to it as above and the matter is still pending before it.

4. When regular Civil Suit No. 105 of 1972 was thus pending in the trial Court the present non-applicant No. 1 instituted another suit being regular suit No. 167 of 1972 on 30th November, 1972 against the present applicants and the present non-applicant No. 2. This suit was also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in that suit from interfering with the alleged possession of the plaintiff namely non-applicant No. 1. An application for temporary injunction was also filed along with the plaint. On 30th November, 1972 the trial Court granted an ex parte temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff namely non-applicant No. 1, subject to the condition that he would not oust defendant No. 1 i.e. the present No. 1 from the residential hut in which she was residing in the suit lands, otherwise than in due course of law. The present applicants appears in the suit and filed the written statements as well as reply to the application for temporary injunction. They denied that Haribhau was not the tenant of the land and that land was personally cultivated by the plaintiff. They maintained that they are heirs.of Haribhau, who was in occupation of the suit land as tenants and as such the lands were not in possession of the plaintiff. In this suit also an issue regarding tenancy was framed and has been referred to the competent authority under the Act for determination and it is pending with that authority.

5. The trial Court after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, confirmed the temporary injunction granted earlier and removed the condition on which it was granted. This order was pass

Click Here to Read the rest of this document