Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1972 Supreme(Mad) 628

Madras High Court
GOKULAKRISHNAN
C.P.Srinivasam Pillai - Appellant
Versus
Chellakumara Gounder - Respondent
Decided On : 10/24/1972

Advocates:
K. Sengottiah, for Petitioner; V. N. Venkatavaradachariar, for Respondent.

A subsequent suit can be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC if the matter in the subsequent suit is the same as the matter in a prior suit that is pending or has been decided, and if the decision in the prior suit will affect the decision in the subsequent suit.

Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SECTION 10 - STAY OF SUIT - SUBSEQUENT SUIT FOR DAMAGES - MAIN ISSUE IN BOTH SUITS IS WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS A TENANT OR A TRESPASSER - DECISION IN APPEAL IN PRIOR SUIT WILL AFFECT DECISION IN SUBSEQUENT SUIT - STAY OF SUBSEQUENT SUIT UNDER SECTION 10, C. P. CODE IS JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a suit for damages against the respondent for the years 1960-61 to 1965-66, which was decreed in his favor. The respondent appealed the decree, arguing that he was a tenant and not a trespasser. While the appeal was pending, the petitioner filed a subsequent suit for damages for the years 1966-67 to 1968-69. The respondent applied for a stay of the subsequent suit under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), arguing that the main issue in both suits was whether he was a tenant or a trespasser, and that the decision in the appeal in the prior suit would affect the decision in the subsequent suit.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the stay of the subsequent suit under Section 10 of the CPC was justified. The court found that the main issue in both suits was whether the respondent was a tenant or a trespasser, and that the decision in the appeal in the prior suit would definitely affect the decision in the subsequent suit. The court also noted that the petitioner had admitted in the plaint in the subsequent suit that the findings in the prior suit on the issue of whether the respondent was a tenant were binding on him under the principle of res judicata.
Issues: Whether the subsequent suit should be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC, given that the main issue in both suits was whether the respondent was a tenant or a trespasser and that the decision in the appeal in the prior suit would affect the decision in the subsequent suit.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 10 of the CPC allows a court to stay a subsequent suit if the matter in the subsequent suit is the same as the matter in a prior suit that is pending or has been decided. The purpose of Section 10 is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to avoid conflict of decisions in respect of the same subject-matter.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the stay of the subsequent suit under Section 10 of the CPC.

ORDER :- This revision petition arises out of the order in I. A. No. 150 of 1971 in O. S. 10 of 1969, wherein the Subordinate Judge, Erode, has stayed the suit O. S. No. 10 of 1969, under Sec. 10, C. P. Code. The facts of the case are ? Prior to the filing of O. S. No. 10 of 1969 wherein I. A. No. 150 of 1971 has been filed, the petitioner herein filed O. S. No. 222 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Erode. In that suit, the petitioner herein claimed damages from the respondent herein for the years 1960-61 to 1965-66. That suit was decreed for Rs. 12,320 against the respondent herein. The respondent herein preferred A. S. 838 of 1968 on the file of this Court and the same is pending. The main contention of the respondent herein in that appeal is that he is a tenant and as such there is no question of claiming any damages from him as a trespasser. But, on the other hand, the petitioner herein asserts, that the respondent is a trespasser and is liable to pay damages. Mr. Venkatavaradachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that if it is held that his client is a tenant, different consequences will follow and as such the question as to whether his client is a tenant or a trespasser is the main issue in both the suits. O. S. 10 of 1969 and O. S. 222 of 1968 and the decision in both the suits depends upon the decision on the aforesaid main issue. Mr. Sengottiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, cited before me Bhola Prasad v. Srimathi Jagpala, AIR 1955 All 384. That is a case in which rents were claimed for successive years after they have become due. In those circumstances, it has been held that the subsequently instituted suit for rent cannot be stayed under Section 10, C. P. Code, in view of the fact that the previous suit in which a decree for rent has been passed, is the subject-matter of appeal before the appellate Court. I do not think there is any difficulty in accepting that proposition. However, the said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, since in the present case the main question that has to be decided is as to whether the respondent herein is a tenant or a trespasser.

2. The next case cited by Mr. Sengotiah is Manoharlal v. Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527. In that decision, Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and also Section 10, C. P. Code were discussed and the question as to whether the Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151, C. P. Code to grant the relief of injunction was also discussed. The Supreme Court held that the Court can grant injunction in appropriate cases, but when there is specific provision such as Section 10, C. P. Code available, the Court cannot invoke its inherent jurisdiction to stay a suit, Mr. Sengotiah is not able to show that this decision applies to the facts of the present case. I am of the opinion that this decision has absolutely no relevance to the facts of the present case.

3. The next decision cited by Mr. Sengottiah is Life Pharmaceuticals v. B. M. Hall, AIR 1971 Cal 345. In that decision, the Calcutta High Court held :-

"In my opinion, the test to be applied in deciding an application under Section 10, C. P. Code is whether the matter in the later suit will be res judicata if the prior suit is taken to have been decreed in the manner as prayed in the plaint. In such circumstances, it will matter little that no written statement has been filed in the earlier suit. If the above test is applied in the present case before me the position will be like this viz., that in the first suit before the Munsif's Court at Alipore if a decree will be deemed to be passed that will be possible only on the basis of the said agreement being a valid and enforceable one. Such will be the case also in respect of the second and third suits. As such it will be idle on the part of the plaintiff company to agitate this point regarding the invalidity of the said agreement by filing another suit later in point of time and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1972 Supreme(Mad) 628

Madras High CourtGOKULAKRISHNANC.P.Srinivasam Pillai - AppellantVersusChellakumara Gounder - RespondentDecided On : 10/24/1972

A subsequent suit can be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC if the matter in the subsequent suit is the same as the matter in a prior suit that is pending or has been decided, and if the decision in the prior suit will affect the decision in the subsequent suit.

Madras High Court
GOKULAKRISHNAN
C.P.Srinivasam Pillai - Appellant
Versus
Chellakumara Gounder - Respondent
Decided On : 10/24/1972