Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
K. N. SAIKIA, J.
Mohan Chandra Deka -Appellant
Versus
Himani Talukdar -Respondent
Civil Revn. No. 76 of 1981
Decided On : 03-01-1984
STAY OF SUIT - MONEY SUIT - TITLE SUIT - JURISDICTION - INHERENT POWERS - S.10/151 C.P.C. - STAY OF MONEY SUIT PENDING DISPOSAL OF TITLE SUIT - CONDITIONS - JURISDICTION OF COURT IN WHICH PREVIOUSLY INSTITUTED SUIT IS PENDING - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed a money suit for recovery of hire charges of furniture and accessories from the opposite party, who had purchased a printing press from the petitioner and agreed to pay hire charges for the room and accessories until the press could be removed. The opposite party filed a title suit for declaration of her tenancy right in the press room and for injunction restraining closure of the door of the room. The trial court stayed the hearing of the money suit till the disposal of the title suit, holding that the subject matter in both suits was the same.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order staying the hearing of the money suit could not be passed under S.10 C.P.C. as the Court in which the previously instituted title suit was pending did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the money suit. However, the court held that the trial court could invoke its inherent powers under S.151 C.P.C. to stay the money suit as the ends of justice required it.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court could stay the hearing of the money suit under S.10 C.P.C.? 2. Whether the trial court could invoke its inherent powers under S.151 C.P.C. to stay the money suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. S.10 C.P.C. requires that the Court in which the previously instituted suit is pending must have jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed in the later suit. In the instant case, the Court in which the title suit was pending did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the money suit, as the valuation of the money suit exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. 2. The Court has inherent powers under S.151 C.P.C. to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. In the instant case, the ends of justice required that the money suit be stayed pending disposal of the title suit, as both suits arose out of the same transaction and the question of tenancy had to be decided before the question of recovery of hire charges could be reasonably decided.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the impugned order staying the hearing of the money suit.
This civil revision impugns the order dt. 4-2-1981 passed in Money Suit No. 17 of 1979 allowing a petition under S.10/151 C.P.C. and staying hearing of the suit till disposal of Money Suit No. 79/77.
2. Title Suit No. 17 of 1979, renumbered on transfer as Money Suit No. 33/80, now pending in the Court of the Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati was instituted by the present petitioner against the present opposite party on 22-1-1979 for recovery of hire charge of furniture etc. amounting to Rs. 13,500.00 alleging that the opposite party had purchased a printing press from the petitioner and failing to remove it forthwith agreed to pay at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per mensem as hire charge for the room and accessories so long as she could not remove the same, but defaulted in payment. That suit is contested by the opposite party stating that she had already instituted Title Suit No. 79/77.
3. The present opposite party filed Title Suit No. 79/77 against the present petitioner and his father (Shri Golap Chandra Deka) for declaration of her tenancy right in the press room and for injunction restraining closure of the door of the room.
4. It would be seen that the house is of Golap Chandra Deka and in one room of that house petitioners press remained installed. That press had been sold by the present petitioner to the present opposite party who had not removed the press forthwith and agreed to pay hire charge of Rs. 300/- per month. Subsequently one door of the room was closed down obstructing entry of the-opposite party to her press room and she filed T.S. No. 79/77 for declaration and injunction as stated above. Subsequently the present petitioner filed T.S.17/79 claiming the hire charges
5.The present opposite party, as defendant, filed a petition in the Money Suit No. 33/77 stating, inter alia, that as she already filed T. S. petitioner filed T. S. 17/79 claiming the hire charges.No. 79/77 on 14-9-1977 in the Court of the Sadar Munsiff, Gauhati against the present petitioner and his father, Golap Chandra Deka for declaration and injunction alleging that she purchased Prova Printing Press by paying Rs. 13,500/- and a document was executed stipulating that the press renamed as Uttam Press would be run in the same house by the purchaser as tenant under the present petitioner, but Golap Chandra Deka threatened her employees and asked them to quit and vacate the premises and blocked the front door of the press room thus preventing running of the press, and hence hearing of the Money Suit No. 33/80 be stayed pending disposal of T. S. No. 79/77. It was urged that both in T. S. 79/77 and in Money Suit No. 33/80 what was directly and substantially in issue was as to whether the purchaser (present opposite party) was or was not a tenant under the seller (present petitioner) and the later suit need, therefore, be stayed. The petition was resisted by the present petitioner contending that the subject matter of the two suits were not even remotely connected.
6. The impugned order staying hearing of Money Suit No. 33/80 was passed mainly on the grounds that from the plaints and the written statements of both the suits the Court came to the conclusion that the subject directly and substantially in issue in both the suits was the same because if the present opposite party succeeded in Title Suit 79/77 and got a declaration that she was a tenant of the present petitioner in respect of the house along with the furniture etc. that would non-suit the money suit for hire charges. The contention that as no issue were yet framed in the title suit no such conclusion could be drawn was rejected, relying on the rulings in AIR 1971 Cal 345 and AIR 1975 Punj and Har 71 (FB).
7. Mr. B. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under S.10 C.P.C. one of the conditions for stay of the subsequent suit is that the previously instituted suit should have been pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the rel
AI
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
