A SUBRAMANIA MUDALIAR Vs. V G SUBRAMANIA BATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT in O.S.No. 12 of 1995, on the file of District Magistrate-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE suit was originally filed on the file of District Munsif" s Court, Kovilpatti as O.S. No.10 of 1991 and subsequently, on the formation of new courts, it was transferred to Vilathikulam Munsif" s Court and renumbered as O.S.No. 12 of 1995. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the property and to restrain the defendant from interfering with their possession.

(3.) IN INdian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-op. Marketing Federation Ltd., A.I.R.1998 S.C. 1952 : 1998 (2) L.W. 632, the Honourable High Court considered the scope of Section 10, C.P.C. and in para 8, it .has been held thus:- "Therefore, the word "trial" in Section 10 will have to be interpreted and construed keeping in mind the object and nature of that provision and the prohibition to'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." The object of the prohibition contained in Section 10 is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits and also to avoid inconsistent findings on the matters in issue. The provision is in the nature of a rule of procedure and does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and deal with the later suit nor does it create any substantive right in the matters. It is not a bar to the institution of a suit. It has been construed by the Court as not a bar of the passing of interlocutory orders such as an order for consolidation of the later suit with the earlier suit, or appointment of a receiver or an injunction or attachment before judgment. The course of action which the Court has to follow according to Sec. 10 is not to proceed with the'trial'of the suit but that does not mean that it cannot deal with the subsequent suit any more or for any other purpose. IN view of the object and nature of the provision and the fairly settled legal position with respect to passing of interlocutory orders, it has to be stated that the word'trial'in Section 10 is not used in its widest sense." (Italics supplied)