BHARAT NIDHI LTD Vs. SHADI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises a short point upon the interpretation of section 10 of the Code of Civil procedure.

(2.) THE facts of the case are simple and not in dispute. On the 21st December 1943 one Shadi Lal brought an action against the Bharat Nidhi Limited for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-on account of damages sustained by the plaintiff for being dispossessed of. a ginning factory during the period 25th September 1947 to the 4th December 1948. While this suit was pending in court the plaintiff brought another suit for damages on similar grounds in respect of the period 21st December 1948 to the 21st September 1950. The decision of the trial Court in the prior action was hotly contested and the appeals preferred by the plaintiff and the defendant are pending in this Court. On the 7th November 1952 the defendant made an application that as the matters in controversy in both the suits were exactly the same, the second suit should be stayed under the provisions of sections 10 and 151 of toe Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court declined to accede to the request and consigned, the application to the Record Room. The defendant is dissatisfied with the order and has come to this Court in revision.

(3.) IT is a well known rule of practice that a Court is at liberty to stay proceedings in a suit, on account of the pendency of another action when the parties, the subject-matter, the issues involved and the relief claimed in both the actions are substantially the same and when the judgment in one case will effectually dispose of the matters in controversy in the other. This rule has been accorded statutory recognition by the enactment of section 10 of the Civil Procedure code which is in the following terms: