RAM KANWAR Vs. PARTAP SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision filed by Ram Kanwar against the order of the trial Court dated 27th September, 1984 deserves to be dismissed.

(2.) BALA Ram was owner of the land in dispute. He leased out this land in favour of Partap Singh Respondent by means of a lease deed dated 26th April, 1983. The Petitioner Ram Kanwar and the Respondent Mahabir are tons of Bala Ram. Ram Kanwar Petitioner filed a suit on 10th November, 1981 claming decree for permanent injunction restraining his father Bala Ram from alienating the lard in dispute Mahabir Respondent was also impleaded as a Defendant. During the pendency of the suit Bala Ram died and his legal representatives were brought on the record Bala Ram having leased out the land in favour of Partap Singh during the pendancy of the suit, Partap Singh was also impleaded as a Defendant and validity of the lease deed in his favour was also challenged. Ram Kanwar Petitioner filed a separate suit too against Bala Ram and Partap Singh challenging the aforesaid lease deed. This suit was filed on 20th May, 1983.

(3.) THERE is no dispute between the parties that the matter in issue in all the aforesaid three suits is common. In other words the matter in issue in the subsequently filed two suits is also directly and substantially in issue in the first suit filed by Ram Kanwar. The only objection raised by the Petitioner's counsel is that application for stay of the suit under Section 10 was filed only in the third suit, therefore, the trial Court was not competent to stay the second suit also which was filed by the Petitioner on 20th May, 1983. The point for consideration, therefore, is whether the trial Court could sue motu stay the second suit under Section 10 of the Code. The answer of this query must be in the affirmative. It is envisaged by Section 10 of the Code that it is incumbent upon the Court to stay proceedings of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. No option in this matter has been left to the trial Court Thus, in the instant case when it was brought to the notice of the trial Court that the matter in issue in two subsequently filed suits is also directly and substantially in issue in the first previously instituted suit between the same parties, it had no option but to stay the proceedings in the subsequent two suits. In the light of the provisions of Section 10 of the Code there is no merit in the Petitioner's contention that the second suit filed by him on 20th May, 1983 could be stayed only if application under Section 10 of the Code had been filed in that suit. In my view, the action of the trial Court in staying the two subsequent suits was not only proper but also essential.