High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
C.R.THAKUR
GURDIAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
AUCKLAND HOUSE SCHOOL - Respondent
Civil Revn. No. 3 of 1975
Decided On : 08/17/1976
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 1 - SECTION 10, 151 - STAY OF SUIT - INHERENT POWER OF THE COURT - ADJUSTMENT OF ADVANCE - WRONG EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION - REVISION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of money for construction and repair works carried out for the defendant school. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking a stay of proceedings till the disposal of an appeal in another suit between the same parties. The trial court dismissed the application, prompting the petitioner to file a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 10 of the CPC, which deals with the stay of suits in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, was not applicable as the causes of action in the two suits were different. However, the court found that the petitioner had adjusted an advance received from the defendant in the suit pending before the subordinate court, while the High Court had directed that the advance be adjusted in the suit before it. The court held that this resulted in a wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 10 of the CPC was applicable to the case. 2. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application for stay under Section 151 of the CPC. 3. Whether the revision petition was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 10 of the CPC is not applicable where the causes of action in two suits are different, even if the parties are the same. 2. The trial court erred in dismissing the application for stay under Section 151 of the CPC as it had the inherent power to stay the suit to prevent abuse of process and to do substantial and equitable justice between the parties. 3. A revision petition is maintainable under Section 115 of the CPC when no appeal lies from an order passed by a court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the trial court, and directed that the suit remain pending till the disposal of the appeal in the other suit.
1. This petition purports in have been filed under the provision of Section 115, Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called the Code) against the order of Sub-Judge II, Simla dated 4-12-1974 whereby the application of Shri Gurdial Singh under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code has been rejected. The petitioner had filed the suit in January 1970, in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Simla against Auckland House School, Simla through its Principal for a money decree of Rs. 3,300/- on the allegations that the plaintiff who is a building contractor had taken the contract for the repairs and construction of several buildings of the defendant and had also received payments on the completion of the works and had also received advance payments. That in the month of December, 1965, the plaintiff was called by the Principal of the defendant school to give estimate for the sanitary work in Belvedere cottage and sanitary work in Belvedere main building. He gave the estimates as under:-
1. Sanitary work in Belve-dere Cottage Rs. 6,300/-
2. Sanitary work in Belve-dere Main Building Rs. 3,000/- The estimates were accepted by the Principal and the plaintiff took the work in hand. He was given a sum of Rs. 5,000/as advance on 27-1-1966 for the completion of the work, a further sum of Rupees 5,000/- on 14-2-1966 and in all Rupees 10,000/- were advanced towards the estimated work of Rs. 9,300/-. The work which was originally entrusted had been increased because of some changes and alterations in the original estimated work. He completed the work in the first week of March, 1966, excepting the sewerage line. A dispute arose between the plaintiff and one Shamboo Ram to whom the plaintiff had entrusted the work on labour rates as he was a registered plumber and was also doing work for the plaintiff. He refused to give the completion report to the Municipal Committee for the connection. The plaintiff requested the Principal to apply to the Municipal authorities for change of the Municipal sanction to some other licensed plumber but the same was also refused. However, the plaintiff got the sewerage line connected on 20-2-1967. The work was checked by mutual agreement between the parties on 4-9-1969 through the Commissioners S/Shri Mohan Singh, S. L. Raheja and H. D. Sardana appointed by the High Court in Suit No. 13 of 1968 between the parties pending in the High Court. In August, 1966, the Principal of the defendant School gave electrical work and sanitary work to the plaintiff to be done in the additional storey of Belvedere Cottage, through verbal orders. For this the defendant agreed to give the market rates and advanced Rs. 3,000/- by a cheque on 20-8-1966. This work was also completed. The defendant pointed out some minor defects which too were removed. The connection of the electricity in the additional storey of the Belvedere Cottage was given on 23-3-1967. Besides this on verbal orders of the Principal of the defendant school, the plaintiff also provided and erected poles for carrying electric mains to the Belevedere Cottage. Despite repeated demands the defendant had not allowed the plaintiff to get the work measured. The work was also got measured and report submitted by the Commissioner appointed by the High Court. In so far as the remaining sanitary work was concerned, the plaintiff had brought the material but the defendant did not cooperate in getting the same carried out with the result that the plaintiff had to remove the material. He also suffered a loss on that account. The defendant also took the material for the use of their building repairs that is, sand, bricks cement, corrugated sheets, bajree etc. The price thereof had not been paid so far and the Principal of the defendant school had admitted this fact. That the value of the work done for the several items detailed under para. 8 amounted to Rupees 15,924.00. Out of this the advance was of Rs.13,000/- and the balance due was Rs. 2,942.00 and an amount of Rs. 700/by way of in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.