RAJA RAM ESTATE Vs. NIHARMONI LAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Narendra Nath Law was the absolute owner of premises No.96 Raja Rammohan Sarani, Calcutta. He died leaving a will by making his son Arun Kumar Law as the sole beneficiary whereas his wife Smt. Niharmoni Law was given life interest under the said will. Both Niharmoni and Arun (hereinafter referred to as "Laws") entered into a development agreement along with one Raja Ram Estate. Under the agreement Raja Ram Estate was to develop the property upon such terms and conditions as recorded in the said agreement. By a further agreement a portion of the said property was agreed to be sold to 'Raja Ram by Laws. Prior to such agreement being entered into Laws entered into another agreement with a third party for which a litigation was then pending which was settled at the instance of Raja Ram. According to Raja Ram they not only paid substantial sums to Laws but also took steps for eviction of tenants and/or occupants from the said premises in question. They also caused the Municipal plan sanctioned and at the stage when they were to commence construction Laws denied their obligation under the contract and filed a suit in the City Civil Court for cancellation of the agreement being Title Suit No. 1051 of 2005. On perusal of the plaint filed before the City Civil Court it appears that Laws contended that they were ignorant in law and whatever documents the Advocates-on-Record for Raja Ram asked them to sign they did so without understanding implication of it. According to them, as per the will they were not entitled to dispose of the property and as such the documents executed by them should be declared as cancelled. On the contrary, Raja Ram contended that Laws were represented by two Advocates namely Sri P. K. Sen Barat, Solicitor and R.N.Basu Mullick, Advocate at the relevant point of time. Moreover, they accepted substantial sums under the agreement. Raja Ram filed a suit in this Court being Commercial Suit No. 267 of 2005, inter alia, claiming for specific performance of the development agreement. Raja Ram also made application for appointment of Receiver and for other reliefs being G.A.No. 3546 of 2005. A special officer was appointed who submitted a report giving details of the occupants staying at the said premises in question. Raja Ram filed an application for transfer of the City Civil Court suit to this Court being A.L.P. No. 18 of 2005 whereas Laws filed an application for stay of Civil Suit No. 267 of 2005 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure being GA.No. 3649 of 2005.

(2.) Those three application were heard by me analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Cases cited by the parties: (i) AIR 1957 Cal.727 (Shorab Merwanji Modi & Anr. v. Mansata Film Distributors & Anr.), (ii) AIR 1971 Cal.345 (Life Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Bengal Medical Hall), (iii) AIR 1975 Cal.69 (Brijlal & Company v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board.), (iv)'AIR 1975 Cal.411 (Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. Bholanath Madanlal Sherawala & Ors.), (v) AIR 1983 Cal.199 (Challapalli Sugars Limited v. Swadeshi Sugar Supply Pvt. Ltd.), (vi) AIR 1985, Cat.154 (Adhish Chandra Sinha v. Hindustan Gas and Industries Ltd. & Anr.), (vii) AIR 1988, Cal.183 (J.C.Roy Chowdhuryv. M/s. Krishna Paper Board Mills & Ors.), Section 10: Rigid Construction :

(3.) If one goes by the words of the section it would appear that to obtain an order of stay the Court has to be satisfied :- (i) Suit liable to be stayed is a later suit, (ii) Both the suits are between the same parties or, (ii) (a) Between the parties under whom they or any of them litigating under the same title, (iii) Both the suits are pending either in the same Court or any other Court within the country.