SANJAY SALES CORPORATION Vs. SUNDRABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application against the order dated 1-2-1994 passed in R. C. S. 114/94 by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, thereby allowing the application under section 10 filed by the non-applicants herein.

(2.) THE applicant herein filed a Civil Suit No. 293/92 against the non-applicants on the ground of harassment caused by the non-applicants with the intention to compel the applicant to vacate the leased premises. The leased premises comprised of 3 rooms owned by the non-applicants and the lease commenced from the year 1972. The relief sought by the applicant in the said suit was that of the permanent injunction to restrain the non-applicants from disturbing the lawful possession of the applicant over the leased premises and also to restrain the non-applicants from disturbing the pipe lines and the drain. Some times in the year 1992, the non applicant No. 3 herein namely Nagpur Improvement Trust, acquired a portion of the leased premises for the purpose of widening of the road. In fact one of the 3 rooms from the leased premises was sought to be acquired by the said acquisition proceedings. The Notice dated 21-5-1993 regarding acquisition was received by the applicant from the Nagpur Improvement Trust in respect of the said acquisition proceedings. It appears that meanwhile the non-applicant informed to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation that, in view of the acquisition and consequent demolition of a portion of his house i. e. the premises in question, there is a danger to the stability of the remaining portion thereof and therefore the entire house be demolished. It is the contention of the applicant that the said letter was written by the non-applicant with the intention to evict the applicant from the leased premises. Thereupon, in order to safeguard the rights of the applicant, he filed another Suit being R. C. S. No. 114/94 against the non-applicant seeking the relief of injunction to restrain the non applicants from demolishing the remaining 2 rooms of the leased premises and also to restrain them from causing obstruction to the applicant in taking precautionary measures for the protection of the said 2 rooms left out after the acquisition of one room by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. On receipt of summons of the said R. C. S. No. 114/94, the non-applicants herein filed an application under section 10 of Civil Procedure Code for stay of the said suit on the ground that the applicant had already filed a suit bearing No. R. C. S. 293/92 and the same is pending and the reliefs claimed in both the suits relate to the same premises, and therefore, the subsequent suit is liable to be stayed in terms of section 10 of Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court, by the impugned order allowed the said application.

(3.) WHILE assailing the impugned order, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the trial Court erred in allowing the application for stay merely on the ground that the reliefs prayed in the two suits are identical and the parties as well as the property involved in the two suits is one and the same. He has further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider that, in order to invoke the powers under section 10 of Civil Procedure Code, it is necessary to see, whether the field of controversy involved in the two suits is substantially the same or not and the same to be determined on the basis of the pleadings in both the suits and not by merely referring the reliefs prayed for in the two suits. Besides, according to the learned advocate, the reliefs prayed in the subsequent suit are totally different from those which are sought in the earlier suit. The learned Advocate further submitted that the earlier suit relates to the controversy arisen from the harassment caused to the applicant by the non-applicants for compelling him to vacate the premises, whereas in the later case, the matter relates to the right of the applicant to retain the portion of the premises left out after the acquisition by virtue of right assured to him under section 108 (e) of Transfer of Property Act.