The interpretation of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its applicability to interlocutory matters.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) - The petitioner is impugning the order dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure P-19) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Panchkula whereby his application dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure P-18) filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') filed under Section 151 of the Code for deciding his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code (Annexure P-17) was dismissed on the ground of it having been rendered infructuous.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and is contrary to the settled position of law pertaining to stay of suit under Section 10 of the Code.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Trial Court while dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code erred in observing that it had been rendered infructuous by failing to appreciate that there was no bar on the powers of the Trial Court to entertain and decide interlocutory applications filed by the parties even if the trial had been stayed under Section 10 of the Code.

4. Learned senior counsel further submits that Section 10 of the Code provides for stay of the trial, however, expression 'trial' appearing therein would not include interlocutory matters within its ambit, for the purpose of Section 10 of the Code. Learned senior counsel has, therefore, asserted that the Trial Court had fallen into error in not deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 on merits and hence the impugned order dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure P-19) deserved to be set aside. In support, leaned senior counsel has placed reliance upon Indian Bank Vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. : 1998(3) RCR (Civil) 228.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while controverting the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contend that once the trial had been stayed under Section 10 of the Code, the Trial Court had no power either to proceed with the suit any further or even to entertain and decide the interlocutory applications. The learned counsel still further submit that the expression 'trial' cannot be narrowly interpreted so as to exclude interlocutory matters from its scope for the purpose of Section 10 of the Code. Ld. counsel have urged that a stay of suit would imply stay of all proceedings and not otherwise. Learned counsel have also submitted that even otherwise the Trial Court at Panchkula has no territorial jurisdiction to try the instant suit and hence in the circumstances, the Court concerned has no power to pass any orders on the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

7. It would be apposite to reproduce Section 10 of the Code to deal with issue in hand, which reads 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.'

8. The question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether or not a Court has the power to entertain and adjudicate upon interlocutory matters when the trial of a suit has been stayed by it under Section 10 of the Code. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank's case (supra) while interpreting the expression 'trial' app