Ranawat, J.—This revision application has been filed by Gillumal and Lallu Bhai against an order of Mr. Ramprasad Sharma, Munsif, Jaipur East, dated the 6th September 1952 by which an application of the defendants for stay of the proceedings in the suit under sec. 10 C.P.C. was dismissed. The facts of the case are that a suit was filed by Sethani Ratan Kunwar against Gillumal & Lallu Bhai for rent of certain premises alleged to have been let to the defendants. After trial, the suit was decreed by the first court and an appeal of the defendants was dismissed and the decree for rent was confirmed. A revision application was filed against the appellate judgment and decree of the District Judge in this court which is said to be pending. In the meanwhile the plaintiff filed another suit for arrears of rent for a period subsequent to the period for which the previous suit had been decreed. The defendants in the subsequent suit raised an objection that until the case of the revision petition is dis- posed of by this court, proceedings relating to the suit filed by the plaintiff should be stayed under the provisions of sec. 10 C.P.C. The trial court dismissed the application of the defendants saying that the causes of action in the two suits were not the same and the matter in issue in the subsequent suit was not the same as in the previous suit.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that as the point relating to the rate of rent is in dispute in the subsequent suit which was also in issue in the former suit the provisions of sec. 10 C.P.C. apply to the later suit. It is therefore prayed that the court of the Munsif should be directed to stay the proceedings till the revision petition which is pending in this Court is decided.

3. The learned counsel of Sethani Ratan Kunwar has cited Gargidin Misra vs. Debicharan (1) (A.I.R. 1929 All. 805.) and Roshandin vs. Malan Bibi (2) (A I.R. 1938 Lahore 502.) in which it has been held that in a subsequent suit for arrears of rent the pendency of a former suit relating to arrears of rent for a different period would not be a bar under sec. 10 C.P.C. The learned counsel of the petitioner has put reliance on the observations in Sm. Jinnat Bibi vs. Howrah Jute Mill Co., Ltd. (3) (A.I.R. 1932 Cal. 751.); Trikamdas Jethabhai & others vs. Jivraj Kahanji & another (4) (A.I.R. 1942 Bom. 314.); and Salamat Rai vs. Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi City (5) (A.I R. 1930 Lahore 526.). In these cases general principles underlying the provisions of sec. 10 C.P.C. have been discussed. Sec. 10 C.P.C. provides that no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other court in the States having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed or in any court beyond the limits of the States established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction or before the Supreme Court. In order that sec. 10 C.P.C. may apply it is necessary that the matter in issue in the two suits should be the samed. The subject-matter of the subsequent suit in the present case is different from the subject-matter of the suit, in the previous suit and it cannot be said merely because one of the issues in both the suits is common that the matter in the subsequent suit is also directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. This view is supported by the decisions in the cases referred to by the learned counsel of the opposite party.

4. This application fails and is dismissed. The costs of the revision shall abide the result of the case in the court below.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document