BENGAL COAL CO LTD Vs. BRIJDEO NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1921 the Chainpur Estate which was then and is now under the Court of Wards granted to the petitioner, The Bengal Coal Company, six mining leases in respect of the Hutar Coal field, The lessees covenanted to start the development of the prospective coal mine as soon as possible after the commencement of the term of the lease, and also undertook not to despatch coal or allow it to be despatched otherwise than by railway. Up to that time there was no railway near and it is now still six miles from it. In 1935 six suits were instituted by the lessor in respect of the six leases claiming to recover from the lessee, by way of damages for breach of the covenant in respect of the commencement of the working of the mines a sum of one lakh fifty-two thousand and odd. The defendant in that suit, namely the lessee, applied to the Court below for stay of the hearing of the suit pending the disposal of another suit which had been instituted in 1933 by the Secy. of State against the Chainpur Estate and its lessee. In that suit the Secy. of State prays for declaration that defendant 1 has no right in the minerals and that defendant 2 has acquired no valid title to them; and also prays for direct vacant possession on the adjudication of his rights. The Court below declined to stay the suit. It is admitted by the learned Advocate who appears for the petitioner, the lessee, on this present application, that he cannot ask us to interfere with the order of the Court below on either of the grounds mentioned in Section 115, Civil P.C., on which our revisional jurisdiction is based. But the learned Advocate contends that this Court has inherent power to stay proceedings where that course is desirable or necessary in the interest of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process.of the Court. This he contends is an instance in which it is eminently in the interest of justice that the suits against him by his lessor should be stayed pending the decision of the rights of the lessor in the suit instituted by the Secy. of State. Reference was made to two decisions in which the inherent power of the Court was invoked namely Harnama Lal V/s. Chaturbhuj 1926 All 212, and a decision of the Lahore High Court in Kadu Mall-Jetha Nand V/s. Tilak Ram 1929 Lah 12. The latter case was very obviously one in which it was desirable for the Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent an abuse of its process. No question arises with regard to the abuse of process of the Court in the present instance; but there is a serious question which arises on the construction of the leases granted to the petitioner as to his liability for the claim made against him in the present case. Should the Secy. of State's contention, that the Chainpur Estate has no right in the minerals be proved to be correct, the present petitioner would be a trespasser so far as the underground rights are concerned and therefore would not be entitled to work, the minerals.

(2.) Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, this appears to me to be one in which it is desirable that the lessors suit against the lessee should be stayed on proper terms pending the decision of the suit brought by the Secy. of State. I would therefore order suits Nos. 2 to 7 of 1935 in the Court of the Deputy Magistrate, Subordinate Judge, Palamau, be stayed pending the decision of title suit No. 18 of 1933 in the same Court, on the present petitioner furnishing, to the satisfaction of the Court below, security in immoveable property for the amount claimed in suits Nos. 2 to 7. The Subordinate Judge will be at liberty from time to time to call upon the present petitioner to increase the amount of the security in the event of an inordinate delay in the disposal of the title suit resulting in the accumulation of heavy interest on the claim in the present suit. The parties will bear their own costs of this application. Rowland, J.

(3.) I agree.