MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Mr Justice R. SUBRAMANIAN
2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.01.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN CRP (PD) No. 2899
D) No. 2899
STAY OF SUIT - SECTION 10 CPC - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit properties. The third respondent in the injunction suit filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/9th share in the suit properties. The petitioner filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking stay of the partition suit on the ground that the injunction suit was pending.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 10 of CPC could not be invoked in the case on hand as the relief prayed for in the two suits was not substantially the same. The court dismissed the application for stay.
Issues: Whether Section 10 of CPC could be invoked to stay a suit when the relief prayed for in the two suits was not substantially the same.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 10 of CPC enables the Court to stay a suit only when the matter in issue in one suit is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition.
CRP (PD) No. 2899 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CRP (PD) No. 2899 of 2021
And
C.M.P.No. 20881 of 2021
Nagarajan
... Petitioner/Petitioner/3rd Defendant
Vs
Palanisamy
... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the fair and final orders dated 09.11.2020 passed in I.A.No.
3 of 2021 in O.S.No. 18 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court at
Paramathi.
***
For Petitioner
: Ms. V.Revathi
O R D E R
Challenge in this revision is to the order of the trial Court
dismissing an application filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure seeking stay of the suit in O.S.No. 18 of 2016 on the ground that
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) No. 2899 of 2021
the previously instituted in the suit in O.S.No. 7 of 2016 is pending.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.s.No. 7 of 2016 on the file of
the District Munsif Court, Paramathi. The said suit is one for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's
possession of the suit properties.
3. The plaintiff would claim that he is the exclusive owner of the
suit property and he is in possession in his own right. The third respondent
in O.S.No. 7 of 2016 has filed the suit in O.S.No. 18 of 2016 in the same
Court seeking partition and separate possession of his 1/9th share in the suit
properties. The partition suit was filed on 31.01.2016 and the suit for
injunction was filed on 25.01.2016. The petitioner, who is the third
defendant in the partition suit and plaintiff in O.S.No. 7 of 2016, the
injunction suit, has filed the instant application seeking stay of the partition
suit.
4. The application for stay was resisted by the respondents
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) No. 2899 of 2021
contending that the suit for injunction has been dismissed for default and
therefore, there is no suit pending. It was also contended that the issues that
arise in both the suits are substantially different and therefore, Section 10 of
CPC will not get attracted.
5. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application for stay on
the ground that the suit for injunction has been dismissed and therefore, in
the absence of second suit, an application under Section 10 of CPC would
not lie.
6. Ms. V.Revathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would vehemently contend that an application to restore the suit is already
pending and if the suit is restored and the suits are tried simultaneously, the
petitioner would be put to hardship.
7. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner. Even assuming that the reasoning of the trial
Judge that the suit in O.S.No. 7 of 2016 having been dismissed, there cannot
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) No. 2899 of 2021
be stay of the suit in O.S.No. 18 of 2016 is erroneous, I do not think Section
10 of CPC could be invoked in the case on hand. In order to invoke Section
10 of CPC, the relief prayed for should also be substantially the same.
Section 10 of CPC enables the Court to stay a suit only when the matter in
issue in one suit is directly and substantially in issue in a previously
instituted suit between the same parties. In the suit for injunction, the only
issue that is to be decided is whether the plaintiff is in possession of the
property or not. In the suit for partition, the issue that is to be decided is
whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share or not. Thus two are not matters
which are substantially the same. Therefore, I am unable to interfere with
the order of the trial Court for dismissing the application. Hence, this Civil
Revision Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Pet
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.