Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
Hiralal & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Khubchand & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19606 of 2019
Decided On : 05-07-2022
[CPC] - [Section 10] - [The court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the petitioners' application under Section 10 of the CPC, determining that the suits for eviction and declaration were not interlinked, thus allowing both proceedings to continue independently.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of their application under Section 10 CPC, which sought to stay eviction proceedings due to a related suit for declaration of ownership filed by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower court had correctly assessed the nature of both suits and concluded that the eviction suit was independent of the declaration suit, thus justifying the dismissal of the application under Section 10 CPC.
Issues: Whether the suits for eviction and declaration were interlinked, warranting a stay of proceedings in the eviction suit under Section 10 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the issues in the eviction suit were based on tenant-landlord relations, which were distinct from the ownership issues in the declaration suit, thereby affirming the lower court's decision.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the lower court's order rejecting the application under Section 10 CPC.
ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners defendants feeling aggrieved by order dated 03.08.2019, whereby application filed by the petitioners under Section 10 CPC has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been filed by the respondents and in the same suit, prayer has also been made to declare the plaintiffs as owner of the land.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the other suit of eviction and arrears of rent has been filed against the present petitioners.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners pleaded before the Court below that proceedings in the suit for eviction and recovery of rent was required to be stayed, as the main dispute between the parties about entitlement of the property was sub-judice and the parties were same in both the suits and as such, the Court was required to consider the lis between the parties and as such, the Court below while passing the order dated 03.08.2019 has committed an error in rejecting the application.
5. Learned counsel submitted that an application filed under Section 10 CPC was also filed in another suit of eviction and arrears of rent and same was also rejected and as such, the Court has decided to proceed further in the matter in both the suits.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
7. This Court finds that the Court below while passing the order dated 03.08.2019 has taken into account the prayers made in both the suits and the nature of dispute between the parties.
8. The Court below has come to conclusion that the suit filed for eviction of the present petitioners and further for recovery of rent, has no connection with the other suit which was filed for declaration.
9. The Court below has rightly come to conclusion that as far as the dispute in a suit relating to eviction and arrears of rent was concerned, the same was to be decided on the basis of tenant-landlord relation and as such, the other issues, which might come before the consideration in a suit for declaration, had no relevance for deciding the suit in which stay of proceedings was sought by the petitioners.
10. This Court finds that the Court below has rightly come to conclusion that both the suits are not interlinked in any manner and as such, the application filed by the petitioners has rightly been rejected.
11. Accordingly, this Court finds no force in the present writ petition and as such, the same is dismissed.
AI
The court established that for an application under Section 10 CPC to succeed, the suits in question must be interlinked, which was not the case here.
The court clarified that distinct issues in separate suits do not warrant a stay under Section 10 of the CPC, emphasizing the need for identity in both the matter in issue and the relief sought.
Section 10 CPC applies only when issues in both suits are directly and substantially the same; otherwise, separate proceedings may continue without conflict.
Section 10 of the CPC prevents concurrent trials of suits with identical issues; distinct issues allow separate proceedings.
A co-defendant cannot file a counter-claim against another co-defendant in a separate suit over distinct property matters, allowing the autonomous pursuit of relief in such disputes.
Under Section 10 CPC, different reliefs sought in suits permit simultaneous proceedings, as the provision aims to prevent concurrent trials of the same matter.
The court affirmed that a registered sale deed is decisive in establishing landlord-tenant relationships, overriding claims based on wills or agreements without proper legal standing.
Stay of suit – For application of Section 10 of CPC, matter in issue in both suits have to be directly and substantially in issue in previous suit.
A suit is maintainable despite prior withdrawal of an eviction petition if it involves distinct causes of action and statutory provisions, as clarified under CPC.
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
