M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
S. D. Dhandapani – Appellant
Versus
Branch Manager Indian Overseas Bank – Respondent
ORDER :- The petitioner is the defendant.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 58 of 1992 for recovery of money. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/defendant filed an application in I.A. No. 299 of 1993 under Section 10, CPC for stay of the proceedings of the suit until final adjudication in company petition No. 80 of 1991 pending on the file of this Court. The said application was dismissed. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also gone through the impugned order.
4. At the outset, I shall state that Section 10, CPC would not at all apply in this case, because the company petition pending before this Court cannot be termed to be a suit and therefore, Section 10, CPC cannot be invoked by the Court, in which the suit for recovery of money is pending, to stay the proceedings of the suit.
5. As per Section 10, CPC, 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.
6. The word 'suit' is important for our purpose. As per the provisions of Order 4, Rule 1
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.