BACHAN SINGH Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the point of controversy is that one Mahendra Singh who claims himself to be the landlord of House No. 228 situated in Indira Colony, Sri Ganganagar filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent against shri Bachan Singh in the Court of learned civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar on 16.5.1984 for the recovery of the arrears of rent from September 1982 to April 1984. In that suit, the written statement was filed by shri bachan Singh and he took a plea that mahendra Singh is not his landlord and he is not his tenant and, therefore, he cannot claim any arrears of rent from him. Subsequent to the filing of this written statement. Mahendra Singh filed another suit in the Court of learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate Sri Ganganagar on 30.4.1985 pleading, inter alia, that Shri Bachan Singh has not paid him rent since September, 1982 and therefore he is in arrears of rent for over a period of 6 months and so, the landlord is entitled to a decree for eviction against Shri Bachan Singh. It was further contended by the plaintiff in that suit that the defendant in his written statement filed in Civil Suit No. 80 of 1986 i.e. the suit for arrears of rent has pleaded that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the defendant and the plaintiff, and this is another ground on which the plaintiff has claimed that he is entitled to a decree for eviction against the defendant from the suit premises. On the application of the plaintiff, the suit which was filed in the Court of learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar was transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sri Naganagar by an order of the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar and that suit, after transfer in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar has been registered as Civil Original Suit No. 81 of 1986.

(2.) THE defendant filed an application in suit No. 81 of 1986 that the proceedings in that suit be stayed because the questions involved in the later suit are substantially the same as that of suit No. 81 of 86. The plaintiff also filed an application under Section 151 CPC that both these suits should be amalgamated. The learned Civil Judge Sri Ganganagar, by his order dated 2.3.1987 has dismissed the application of the defendant wherein as has accepted the application of the plaintiff and has ordered for the amalgamation of the suits. Aggrieved against this order, the defendant has filed this revision petition.

(3.) RELIANCE was also placed on a decision of this Court in Munilal v. Sarvajeet, 1982 WLN 756, wherein it has been held that the provisions of Section 10 CPC are mandatory and the trial of a subsequently instituted suit is bound to be stayed if any party makes a request before the Court trying that a previously instituted suit is pending determination either in the trial Court or the first appeal or second appeal arising therefrom is pending for decision. It was further held that as no objection under Section 10 CPC to the trial of the subsequently instituted suit was taken until the termination of the proceeding in the suit, the objection must be deemed to have been waived by the petitioner and it is not open to him to raise such an objection in the appeal arising out of the subsequently instituted suit. A similar view has also been expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Heeralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 wherein it has been observed that the provisions of Section 10 are clear, definite and mandatory and powers of the Court under Section 151 CPC can be exercised by the Court for the ends of justice. It has further been observed that in view of the provisions of this section, it was open to the respondent to apply for the transfer of the suit at Asansol to the Indore Court, the two suit could have been tried together.