JADO RAI Vs. ONKAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second revision. The courts below held, while deciding an issue framed thus in a pending suit "whether the suit is liable to be stayed?" that the suit was not liable to be stayed. That was the finding of the trial court and the lower revisional court affirmed the said finding. In the second revision before me it is contended that the courts below have not properly construed the pleadings in the two suits in question and they were too much pre-occupied with the ingredients of Section 10, Civil P. C. and they failed to consider the applicability of a Section 151, Civil P. C. In my opinion, the courts below were right in holding that the suit in question could not be stayed under Section 10, Civil P. C. This conclusion can be arrived at on the simple and undisputed ground that the court where the earlier suit was filed did not have the jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit. The first suit was filed in the court of the Munsif and the second suit was filed in the court of the District Judge. It is obvious that one of the basic ingredients of Section 10 has not been made out in the instant case, and, therefore, the suit could not be stayed under Section 10, Civil P. C. However, I agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that it was possible for the trial court to stay the suit under Section 151, Civil P. C. and the courts below have not properly considered the ingredients of Section 151, Civil P. C. Learned counsel for the opposite party, Shri H. S. Joshi, has contended before me that Section 10 is exhaustive of the situations in which the court can stay a suit and apart from the said provision it is not open to a court to act under Section 151, Civil P. C. to stay the proceedings in a suit. Learned counsel has placed his principal reliance on Manohar Lal v. Hira Lal, (AIR 1962 SC 527) where it was laid down :

(2.) IN AIR 1964 SC 215 it was laid down as under :

(3.) IN AIR 1965 SC 1144 it was laid down as under :