Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Ruchika Puglani - Appellant
Versus
Aasna Digin - Respondent
CM(M) 398 of 2022 & CM Appl. 20682 of 2022
Decided On : 28-10-2022
Electricity - Disconnection Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 10 - [ELECTRICITY] - [Disconnection Dispute] - [CPC Section 10] - The court discussed the application of Section 10 of the CPC in staying the trial of a suit pending the outcome of another suit. The court emphasized the need for complete identity of subject matter, cause of action, and relief in both suits for Section 10 to apply. The court held that the mere fact that the outcome of one suit may have an effect on the outcome of the other is insufficient to invoke the said provision. It further emphasized that the possibility of contradictory verdicts has to be in respect of the same relief. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order, dismissing the application under Section 10.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved two suits - CS ADJ DJ 482/2021, an eviction suit, and CS SCJ 1421/2021, a suit complaining about disconnection of electricity and theft of an electricity meter. The impugned order stayed the trial of CS SCJ 1421/2021 pending the outcome of CS ADJ DJ 482/2021.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no identity or even similarity of cause of action, subject matter, or relief in the two suits. It held that the mere fact that the outcome of one suit may have an effect on the outcome of the other is insufficient to invoke Section 10. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order, dismissing the application under Section 10.
Issues: The main issue was the application of Section 10 of the CPC in staying the trial of a suit pending the outcome of another suit. The court analyzed the need for complete identity of subject matter, cause of action, and relief in both suits for Section 10 to apply.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for complete identity of subject matter, cause of action, and relief in both suits for Section 10 to apply. It held that the mere fact that the outcome of one suit may have an effect on the outcome of the other is insufficient to invoke the said provision. The court further emphasized that the possibility of contradictory verdicts has to be in respect of the same relief.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the application under Section 10 was dismissed.
1. The impugned order dated 15th February 2022, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge ("the learned ASCJ"), invokes Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to stay the trial in CS SCJ 1421/2021 (Ruchika Puglani v. Aasna Digin) pending the outcome of CS ADJ DJ 482/2021, (Aasna Digin v. Pawan Hans Taheem). Ruchika Puglani, the petitioner before me, is the plaintiff in CS SCJ 1421/2021 (the trial in which has been stayed) and Defendant 2 in CS ADJ DJ 482/2021.
Facts
CS ADJ DJ 482/2021
2. CS ADJ DJ 482/2021 was instituted by the respondent Aasna Digin ("Aasna") against Pawan Hans Taheem ("Pawan") and Ruchika Puglani ("Ruchika") who are husband and wife. Ruchika is the petitioner in the present petition.
3. Aasna claimed, in the plaint in CS ADJ DJ 482/2021, to be the landlord of Pawan and Ruchika in respect of the premises situated at 70/18, Second Floor, B Side, B-1 Extension, Sewak Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi 110059 (hereinafter "the suit property"). It was claimed that Aasna had let out the said premises to Pawan and Ruchika vide lease deed dated 13th April 2019 for a period of 11 months at a fixed monthly rent of Rs.11,000/-. The period of lease was to expire on 23rd January 2020. Even after the expiry of the period of lease, the plaint averred that Aasna allowed Pawan and Ruchika to continue residing in the suit property on oral monthly lease, and that Pawan and Ruchika had agreed to vacate the suit property on seven days' notice.
4. Aasna further averred, in her plaint, that Pawan and Ruchika were in default of rent since January 2021. Aasna claimed to have called upon them to vacate the suit premises in March 2021. On Pawan and Ruchika failing to do so, Aasna instituted CS ADJ DJ 482/2021. The suit also averred that, apart from arrears of rent, Pawan and Ruchika were in arrears of electricity charges, water charges, RWA charges and other utility charges, totalling approximately to Rs.21,000/-.
5. Premised on the aforesaid assertions and allegations, Aasna prayed, in CS ADJ DJ 482/2021, that Pawan and Ruchika be directed to immediately vacate the suit property and that vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property be restored to her. Additionally, outstanding monetary claims, which were allegedly remaining to be paid by Pawan and Ruchika, were also claimed in the suit.
6. Mr. Anjum Kumar, learned Counsel for Ruchika, the petitioner in the present petition, submits that his client is yet to receive summons in the aforesaid suit.
CS SCJ 1421/2021
7. CS SCJ 1421/2021 was instituted by Ruchika against Aasna Digin and BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. ("BSES"). Pawan is not a party in the said suit.
8. Ruchika contends, in the plaint in CS SCJ 1421/2021, that she, with her husband Pawan, were co-tenants in respect of the suit property, enjoying electricity supply provided by BSES. The plaint, while admitting that there was matrimonial discord between Pawan and Ruchika, averred, nonetheless, that Ruchika continued to reside in the suit property and that no electricity charges were due to BSES. While alleging that Aasna was employing coercive measures to evict Ruchika from the suit property, without due justification, the main grievance of Ruchika, in her plaint, stemmed from an incident which took place at 5 p.m. on 9th December 2021, when electricity in the suit property was suddenly disconnected. On enquiring into the matter, Ruchika claims that the meter, through which electricity was supplied to the suit property, was found missing. On visiting the office of BSES, Ruchika was informed that electricity had not been disconnected by BSES but that the case was one of theft of the electricity meter, for which the BSES authorities advised Ruchika to approach the police. Following the said advice, the plaint avers that an FIR was lodged by Ruchika at the police station at about 12.22 a.m.
9. Despite repeated efforts to contact the concerned officials at BSES, the plaint in CS SCJ 1421/2021
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for Section 10 of the CPC to apply, there must be complete identity of subject matter, cause of action, and relief in both suits. The mere fac....
Section 10 of the CPC requires complete identity of subject matter for staying proceedings in concurrent suits; conflicting properties undermine the applicability of this provision.
Point of law: If matter in later suit is found to be “directly and substantially in issue” in previously instituted suit, later suit is liable to be stayed under Section - 10 of C.P.C.
Section 10 CPC mandates stay of subsequent suit if issues directly/substantially same as prior pending suit between same parties on common property/cause challenging prior decree, preventing parallel....
Stay of suit – For applicability of Section 10 of C.P.C. there must be complete identity of entire two suits – Section 10 was never intended to take away inherent power of Court to consolidate for in....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
