The central legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation and application of the legal provisions regarding the stay of proceedings under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT - MOHITE R.S., J.:---Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

3. This civil revision application, which has been field by the original defendant-landlord, challenges an order below Exhibit 8 in Small Causes Suit No. 18 of 1999, which is an order passed below an application for staying the proceedings in the suit, purported to be filed under section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.

4. It is an admitted position that the defendant-landlord was granted permission by the Rent Controller, which was confirmed in appeal and writ petition in this regard is admitted and pending before the Single Judge of this Court. In the meanwhile, the defendant-landlord filed a suit for eviction and possession along with recovery of arrears of rent. In this suit, the defendant filed the application at Exhibit 8 for staying of proceedings on the ground of pendency of writ petition in this Court. It appears that this application has been allowed by the impugned order dated 4-4-2000. A perusal of the order indicates that the trial Court has accepted that the Court can proceed with the matter and can pass a decree by noting that its execution is subject to confirmation of the order of the Rent Controller i.e. Appellate Authority. Having made this observation, the trial Court has gone on to allow this application by referring to certain observations made by this Court in the case of (Prabhakar v. Bharat)1, reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 426. The trial Court has stated that "it has been also expressed therein that proper course for the Court would be to stay the proceedings and await the decision."

5. I have perused the Division Bench judgment of this Court and I find that the observations of this Court in para 18 have been totally misquoted. What has been held by the Division Bench is that while a suit can proceed, it would be necessary to stay the decision of the suit. In the circumstances, I find that the impugned order is untenable in law and required to be quashed and set aside.

6. I, therefore, make the Rule absolute and the impugned order dated 4-4-2000 passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Buldana, below Exhibit 8 in Small Cause Suit No. 18 of 1999 is quashed and set aside. If the decree is passed then the same may not be executed till the disposal of the pending writ petition.

7. In the result, rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

Rule made absolute.

-----

Click Here to Read the rest of this document