DWARKA PRASAD, J.— An interesting question regarding the interpretation of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises in this revision petition as to the meaning and contents of the expression "the trial of any suit."

2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord non-petitioner filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioner tenant on December 6, 1977 in the court of Munsif, Shri Ganganagar, which was transferred to the Court of Additional Munsif Sri Ganganagar. In that suit, a decree for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent was passed against the petitioner on February 27, 1981. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid decree and the said appeal is still pending in the court of District Judge, Shri Ganganagar.

3. Earlier to the filing of the suit for ejectment the petitioner had filed a suit on November 28, 1977 in the court of Munsif, Shri Ganganagar seeking a declaration to the effect that the petitioner-tenant could not be dispossessed from the premises in dispute without the process of law. In that suit, the tenant petitioner claimed that he was a tenant of two rooms and a court yard on a monthly rent of Rs 40/-. This suit has also been transferred to the court of Additional Munsif, Shri Ganganagar and is still pending in that court. The petitioner filed an application in the court of the learned District Judge, Shri Ganganagar, in the appeal pending against the decree for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent stating that as the questions for determination in that appeal are the same as are required to be determined in the civil suit filed by the petitioner and which is pending in the court of Additional Munsif, ,Shri Ganganagar, the proceedings in the appeal should be stayed until the decision of the previously instituted suit. The learned District Judge by his order dated July 15, 1981 agreed to stay the proceedings in the appeal relating to ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, but he imposed a condition upon the tenant-petitioner that he should deposit all the over-due rent within 15 days of the order,

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned District Judge, Shri Ganganagar the tenant petitioner has filed this revision petition and it has been urged by his learned counsel that while staying the proceedings under Section 10 C. P. C, the appellate court acted without jurisdiction in imposing any condition regarding payment of arrears of rent. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord non-petitioner contends that the proceedings in the appeal could not have been stayed at all as the trial of the suit was over when the decree for ejectment and arrears of rent was passed by the trial court and an order staying the proceedings in the appeal could not have been passed at all under Section 10 C. P.C.

5. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which I am concerned in this revision petition, runs as under:-

"10. Stay of suit:-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 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 India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.

Explanation:—The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action."

6. What Section 10 prohibits is the "trial of any suit" when the matter in issue in that suit is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. So far as the expression previously instituted-suit is concerned it presents no difficulty, as it is well settled that suit includes an appeal and the trial of a subsequentl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document