C P SRINIVASAM PILLAI Vs. CHELLAKUMARA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of the order in I. A. No. 150 of 1971 in O. S. 10 of 1969 wherein the Subordinate Judges, Erode, has stayed the suit O. S. No. 10 of 1969, under Sec. 10, C. P. Code. The facts of the case are ; Prior to the filing of o. S. No. 10 of 1969 wherein I. A. No. 150 of 1971 has been filed the petitioner herein filed O. S. No. 222 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate judge, Erode. In that suit, the petitioner herein claimed damages from the respondent herein for the years 1960-61 to 1965-66. That suit was decreed for Rs. 12,320 against the respondent herein. The respondent herein preferred A. S. 838 of 1968 on the file of this Court and the same is pending. The main contention of the respondent herein in that appeal is that he is a tenant and as such there is no question of claiming any damages from him as a trespasser. But, on the other hand, the petitioner herein asserts, that the respondent is a trespasser and is liable to pay damages. Mr. Venkatavaradachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that if it is held that his client is a tenant different consequences will follow and as such the question as to whether his client is a tenant or a trespasser is the main issue in both the suits. O. S. 10 of 1969 and O. S. 222 of 1968 and the decision in both the suits depends upon the decision on the aforesaid main issue. Mr. Sengottiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, cited before me Bhola Prasad v. Srimathi Jagpala, That is a case in which rents were claimed for successive years after they have become due. In those circumstances it has been held that the subsequently instituted suit for rent cannot be stayed under Section 10, C. P. Code, in view of the fact that the previous suit in which a decree for rent has been passed is the subject-matter of appeal before the appellate Court. I do not think there is any difficulty in accepting that proposition. However, the said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case since in the present case the main question that has to be decided is as to whether the respondent herein is a tenant or a trespasser.

(2.) THE next case cited by Mr. Sengotiah is Manoharlal v. Hiralal. In that decision. Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and also Section 10. C. P. Code were discussed and the question as to whether the Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151. C. P. Code to grant the relief of injunction was also discussed. The Supreme Court held that the Court can grant injunction in appropriate cases, but when there is specific provision such as Section 10. C. P. Code available, the Court cannot invoke its inherent jurisdiction to stay a suit. Mr. Sengotiah is not able to show that this decision applies to the facts of the present case. I am of the opinion that this decision has absolutely no relevance to the facts of the present case.

(3.) THE next decision cited by Mr. Sengottiah is Life Pharmaceuticals v. B. M. Hall, In that decision, the Calcutta High Court held :--