1981 Supreme(MP) 584

G. G. Sohani, J.
Harikishan v Rishi Kumar.
C. R. No. 645 of 1979 (I); Decided on 14-10-1981.

Headnote:Civil P.C. 1908 -- Ss. 10 and 151-- eviction suit pending -- opponent filing suit for specific performance as an indigent person and submitting stay application in eviction suit -- S. 10 not applicable in termsd`recourse of S. 151 is also not available.

        The material facts giving rise to this revision petition briefly are as follows. The-plaintiff applicant instituted a suit against the non applicant on 16th January 1978 for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. After service of summons in that suit on the non-applicant, the non-applicant filed an application, registered as Misc. Case. 90 of 1978, on 19th June 1978, in the Court of the District Judge, Indore, for permission to sue as an indigent person claiming specific performance of a contract alleged to have been entered into between the applicant and non-applicant on 6th June to sell the suit house to the non-applicant. The non-applicant thereafter submitted an application under section 10 CPC read with section 151 CPC praying that the earlier suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-applicant be stayed. That application was allowed by the trial Court by its impugned order. Aggrieved by that order the plaintiff-applicant has preferred this revision petition.

        Held : It was not disputed before the trial Court as observed by it in the impugned order, that the application for permission to sue as an indigent person was filed by the non-applicant subsequent to the institution of the present suit. It is also clear from a refusal of the application filed by the non-applicant under section 10 CPC read with section 151 CPC that the non-applicant has sought· permission to sue as and indigent person claiming specific performance of a contract alleged to have been entered into by the applicant to sell the suit house in question. It is thus clear that the provisions of section 10 CPC are in terms not attracted in the instant case. That is also the finding of the trial Court. The trial Court, however, held, following a decision of a Single Bench of this Court in S. C, Bharat (Dr.)v. J. Jacob 1977 JLJ-SN 82, that the suit for eviction, though instituted earlier, could be stayed under the provisions of section 151 CPC if the defendant tenant subsequently institutes a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell the suit premises. The full report of the decision in S. C. Bharat (Dr.) v. J. Jacob (supra) is not available, but it seems, with respect to the learned Single Judge, that the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court is Manoharlal v. Seth Hiralal (AIR 1962 SC 527) has not been taken into consideration. The decision of the Supreme Court in Manoharlal v. Seth Hiralal (Supra) is binding on me. In that case, it has been held by the Supreme Court that when there is a special provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for dealing with the contingencies of two such suits being instituted, recourse to the inherent powers under section 151 CPC is not justified. The Supreme Court has further observed in that case that the inherent powers should be exercised by a Court in very exceptional. circumstances and that such powers should not be exercised unless exercise of such powers is absolutely essential for the ends of justice. 1977 JLJ SN 82 not followed, AJR 1962 SC 527 followed.