Back
L.MANOHARAN
Vrinda – Appellant
Versus
Indira Devi – Respondent
What are the conditions for the operation of Section 10 of the CPC regarding the stay of proceedings? What is the scope of "trial" under Section 10 of the CPC? Can a court entertain interlocutory applications if the trial of a suit is stayed under Section 10 of the CPC?
Key Points: - The revision petitioner sought a stay of proceedings in O.S.811 of 1993 until the disposal of O.S.106 of 1993 (!) . - Both suits were for permanent injunction, and the subject matter and parties were substantially the same (!) [15000088780001]. - Section 10 of the CPC allows for the stay of trial if the issue in the earlier suit is directly and substantially in issue in the subsequently instituted suit, between the same parties or their representatives, and there is identity of title agitated in both suits [15000088780003]. - Substantial identity of the parties in both suits is sufficient for the operation of Section 10 CPC [15000088780004]. - The cause of action for one suit need not be the same as in the other suit, and the relief prayed for in both suits need not be identical [15000088780007][15000088780008]. - The examination of facts or law for the purpose of determining issues constitutes trial (!) . - The decision in one suit can have a strong impact on the decision in the other suit [15000088780008]. - The court can pass interlocutory orders even if the trial of the suit is stayed under Section 10 CPC (!) . - The court set aside the impugned order and stayed the trial of O.S.811 of 1993 until the disposal of O.S.106 of 1993 (!) . - The jurisdiction of the court to entertain interlocutory applications in the nature of injunction, appointment of receiver, or an order of attachment before judgment would not be affected by the stay (!) .
Revision petitioner in this C.R.P. is the second defendant in O.S.811 of 1993 and petitioner in LA. 3082 of 1993. She filed a petition under Section 10 of the CPC for staying all further proceedings in the said suit till the disposal of O.S.106 of 1993 instituted by her. By the impugned order the learned Munsiff did not allow the prayer for stay; but allowed consolidation of the two suits. The said order is under challenge in this revision.
2. It is an admitted case that the subject matter in both the suits is the same. Defendants in O.S.106 of 1993 are the plaintiffs in O.S.811 of 1993. In that the plaintiff in O.S.106 of 1993 and her husband are the defendants. Thus the parties in both the suits are substantially the same particularly when according to the petitioner, the 2nd defendant has no independent claim and that he is looking after the property as her husband. Both the suits are for a decree of permanent injunction. The earlier instituted suit is O.S.106 of 1993. As noticed, the petition filed by the second defendant in O.S.811 of 1993 was to stay further proceedings in the said suit till the disposal of the earlier instituted suit O.S.106 of 1993.
3.Learned coun
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
