SANKHLA INDUSTRIES Vs. HIRALAL PUKHRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' revision application directed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer dated 22-9-1972 whereby the learned Civil judge rejected the petitioners' application for staying the suit under Section 10, civil Procedure Code.

(2.) M/s. Sankhla Industries instituted a suit for rendition of accounts against the non-petitioner M/s. Hiralal Pukhraj on 2-5-1972 in the Court of Munsiff, Beawar alleging that they had appointed M/s. Hiralal Pukhraj as their agents for sale of 139 bales of cotton but the latter had not rendered accounts of the same. About two months thereafter M/s. Hiralal Pukhraj instituted the present suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Ajmer against the petitioners M/s. Sankhla Industries and others alleging that by virtue of settled accounts between the parties dated 19-10-1971 a sum of Rs. 6070. 50 was outstanding against the defendants. It was therefore prayed that a decree for the said amount along with interest Rs. 607. 00 and notice charges Rs. 2. 80, total Rs. 6680. 30 be passed against the petitioners. After notice of the suit having been served upon them, the defendant-petitioners made an application under Section 10, Civil Procedure Code on 22-9-1972 praying that in view of the suit previously instituted by them on the same facts in the Court of munsiff, Beawar the present suit may be stayed. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the learned Additional Civil Judge to whom the suit had been transferred dismissed the petitioners' application on the same day and adjourned the case to 4-10-1972 for filing written statement. In these circumstances the defendant-petitioners have filed this revision application from the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer dated 22-9-1972.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has urged that the subject-matter of the two suits is the same and that the Munsiff, Beawar in whose Court the petitioners had instituted the earlier suit for rendition of accounts is competent to grant relief claimed in the present suit by the plaintiff-non-petitioner. It is thus urged that the learned Additional Civil Judge was clearly in error in rejecting the stay application. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied on Srinivas Timber Yard v. Jayaram Shivaji and Sons Firm, ILR (1970) Cut 337.