NARESH GUPTA Vs. SH DALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition has been directed against the order dated 7. 11. 1997 passed by Civil Judge (J. D.) Panchkula. By this order, the learned civil Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioners Under Section 10 C. P. C. for stay of the suit filed by the respondents.

(2.) MR . Goyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners had filed a suit on 8. 9. 1997 against Haryana State Electricity Board in which it was prayed that decree for permanent injunction be passed restraining the defendant Electricity Board not to grant any additional electric connection without prior information and permission of the plaintiffs who according to him are the landlords of the suit premises. It may be relevant to note here that the respondents were not impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by the petitioners. The contention raised by Mr. Goyal is that the respondents subsequently have filed suit on 6. 10. 1997 against Electricity Board and in that suit the respondents have prayed for grant of electric connection in the same premises which admittedly are in the possession of the respondents. Mr. Goyal, therefore, contends that since the prayer made by the, petitioners in their suit and the prayer made by the respondents in their suit is to the same effect i. e. with regard to the grant/non-grant of electric connection, the subsequent suit filed by the respondents should be stayed In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Calcutta High Court reported in Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. v. Bholanath Madan Lal Sherawala and Ors. , A. I. R. 1975 Calcutta 411.

(3.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the well reasoned order passed by the learned trial Court. In terms of section 10 C. P. C. , the matter in issue has to be directly and subsequently in issue in the previously instituted suit and it should be between the same parties. After having perused the plaints of the two suits, I find that the prayer made by the petitioners is a negative prayer to the effect that the Electricity Board should not grant any connection without-hearing the petitioners whereas in the other suit filed by the respondents, it has been specifically alleged by the respondents that the petitioners took away the plug/grip of electricity connection from the main switch and had disrupted the electricity supply to them and it was in these circumstances that in their suit they have prayed far installation of new connection. In view of these allegations, the petitioners will be required to pray for an interim relief also which they cannot get in the suit filed by the petitioners as held by this Court in the case of Ram Chandet (supra) and Om Parkash (supra ). Besides I find that the points raised by the respondent in their suits can not be said to the substantially same as raised in the suit filed by the petitioners. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. Copy of the order be given dasti or usual payment. I may, however, clarity that any observations made herein above shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case.