Back
S.S.SUBRAMANI
K. Balu and others – Appellant
Versus
Madasamy and others – Respondent
Key Points: - The court refused to entertain an application for injunction in a suit that was stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, returning the application instead of considering it [21000295230002]. - Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit if the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties [21000295230004]. - A stay order under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not take away the power of the court in the stayed suit to make interlocutory orders, such as orders for a receiver or an injunction (!) . - The stay of the trial of a suit does not preclude parties from seeking appropriate interlocutory relief that may be available and warranted in the facts and circumstances (!) (!) . - Interlocutory matters, if decided, can keep the proceedings alive and ready to proceed further once the stay is lifted, thereby aiding the judicial process (!) . - An amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not a matter affecting the trial of the suit and can be considered even when the suit has been stayed under Section 10 [21000295230007] (!) . - Passing an order on an interlocutory application cannot be considered as proceeding with the trial of the suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (!) . - Interlocutory orders, such as for a receiver, an injunction, or attachment before judgment, are not prevented by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (!) . - The court has a duty to see whether a stay is a bar for entertaining an application, and if the application has nothing to do with the trial or determining the rights of parties, there is no prohibition in entertaining it [21000295230010]. - The court directed the lower court to entertain the application for injunction and pass orders after permitting the petitioner to amend the application, noting that the lower court had committed a grave injustice by returning the application [21000295230012].
1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 298 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur have come to this court complaining about the illegality of procedure adopted by the Lower Court.
2. Petitioners have filed the suit for declaration that they are hereditary Poojaries and for consequential reliefs. Respondents had filed a suit against some third parties for the relief relating to settlement of accounts, etc.; and the same is pending before this Court in S.A.1548 of 1995. In view of the pendency of second appeal before this Court, an application was filed by respondents to have the entire suit stayed under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also passed an order under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure staying all the proceedings.
3. Thereafter, the same petitioners moved an application for injunction in the suit seeking for some urgent reliefs. I am not going into the question as to the relief sought for in that injunction application since the court refused to entertain the same in view of the stay of suit under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. The Court refused even to receive the application and returned the same. That procedure is chall
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
