Bombay High Court
Sau. Rekha Purushottam Karale vs Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Thr. Its ... on 4 April, 2019
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 1 Common Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1741/2019
Gajanan Gaurishankar Bhartiya,
Aged 62 years, Occup: Business
(Cutlery Shop), R/o Gandhi Chowk,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Distt: Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon,
Through its Managing Trustee Shri Shivshankar
S/o Sukhdeo Patil, Aged about 75 years,
R/o Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.
2. Dr. Rameshchandra s/o Champalal Dangra,
Aged about 72 years.
3. Pramod Vasantrao Ganeshpatil,
Aged adult.
4. Chandulalji S/o Kisanlalji Agrawal,
Aged adult.
5. Keshav S/o Trikamdas Tank,
Aged adult.
6. Govind S/o Sukhdeo Kalore,
Aged adult.
7. Nilkanth S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
8. Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh,
Aged adult.
9. Narayanrao S/o Yadavrao Patil,
Aged adult.
10. Shrikant S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
11. Vishveshwar S/o Shaligram Trikal,
Aged adult.
12. Pankaj S/o Gajanan Shitut,
Aged adult.
All No.2 to 12 are trustees of Plaintiff
No.1-Trust, All Nos. 2 to 12
C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 :::
WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 2 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 1742/2019
Vanmala Tulshiram Sonone,
Aged 55 years, Occup: Business
(Cutlery Shop), R/o State Bank Colony,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Distt: Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon,
Through its Managing Trustee Shri Shivshankar
S/o Sukhdeo Patil, Aged about 75 years,
R/o Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.
2. Dr. Rameshchandra s/o Champalal Dangra,
Aged about 72 years.
3. Pramod Vasantrao Ganeshpatil,
Aged adult.
4. Chandulalji S/o Kisanlalji Agrawal,
Aged adult.
5. Keshav S/o Trikamdas Tank,
Aged adult.
6. Govind S/o Sukhdeo Kalore,
Aged adult.
7. Nilkanth S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
8. Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh,
Aged adult.
9. Narayanrao S/o Yadavrao Patil,
Aged adult.
10. Shrikant S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
11. Vishveshwar S/o Shaligram Trikal,
Aged adult.
12. Pankaj S/o Gajanan Shitut,
Aged adult.
All No.2 to 12 are trustees of Plaintiff
No.1-Trust, All Nos. 2 to 12
C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 :::
WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 3 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 1744/2019
Rekha Pramodrao Deshmukh,
Aged 52 years, Occup: Business
(Sweetmeat Shop), R/o Deshmukhpura,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Distt: Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon,
Through its Managing Trustee Shri Shivshankar
S/o Sukhdeo Patil, Aged about 75 years,
R/o Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.
2. Dr. Rameshchandra s/o Champalal Dangra,
Aged about 72 years.
3. Pramod Vasantrao Ganeshpatil,
Aged adult.
4. Chandulalji S/o Kisanlalji Agrawal,
Aged adult.
5. Keshav S/o Trikamdas Tank,
Aged adult.
6. Govind S/o Sukhdeo Kalore,
Aged adult.
7. Nilkanth S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
8. Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh,
Aged adult.
9. Narayanrao S/o Yadavrao Patil,
Aged adult.
10. Shrikant S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
11. Vishveshwar S/o Shaligram Trikal,
Aged adult.
12. Pankaj S/o Gajanan Shitut,
Aged adult.
All No.2 to 12 are trustees of Plaintiff
No.1-Trust, All Nos. 2 to 12
C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 :::
WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 4 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 1804/2019
Nitin Gajanan Padmane,
Aged 34 years, Occup: Business
(Cutlery Shop), R/o Western gate of temple,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Distt: Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon,
Through its Managing Trustee Shri Shivshankar
S/o Sukhdeo Patil, Aged about 75 years,
R/o Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.
2. Dr. Rameshchandra s/o Champalal Dangra,
Aged about 72 years.
3. Pramod Vasantrao Ganeshpatil,
Aged adult.
4. Chandulalji S/o Kisanlalji Agrawal,
Aged adult.
5. Keshav S/o Trikamdas Tank,
Aged adult.
6. Govind S/o Sukhdeo Kalore,
Aged adult.
7. Nilkanth S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
8. Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh,
Aged adult.
9. Narayanrao S/o Yadavrao Patil,
Aged adult.
10. Shrikant S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
11. Vishveshwar S/o Shaligram Trikal,
Aged adult.
12. Pankaj S/o Gajanan Shitut,
Aged adult.
All No.2 to 12 are trustees of Plaintiff
No.1-Trust, All Nos. 2 to 12
C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 :::
WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 5 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 1805/2019
Rahul Ramkrushna Wadokar,
Aged 30 years, Occup: Business
(Cutlery Shop), R/o Shegaon,
Tq. Shegaon, Distt: Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon,
Through its Managing Trustee Shri Shivshankar
S/o Sukhdeo Patil, Aged about 75 years,
R/o Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.
2. Dr. Rameshchandra s/o Champalal Dangra,
Aged about 72 years.
3. Pramod Vasantrao Ganeshpatil,
Aged adult.
4. Chandulalji S/o Kisanlalji Agrawal,
Aged adult.
5. Keshav S/o Trikamdas Tank,
Aged adult.
6. Govind S/o Sukhdeo Kalore,
Aged adult.
7. Nilkanth S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
8. Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh,
Aged adult.
9. Narayanrao S/o Yadavrao Patil,
Aged adult.
10. Shrikant S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
11. Vishveshwar S/o Shaligram Trikal,
Aged adult.
12. Pankaj S/o Gajanan Shitut,
Aged adult.
All No.2 to 12 are trustees of Plaintiff
No.1-Trust, All Nos. 2 to 12
C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 :::
WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 6 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 1862/2019
Dnyaneshwar Trimbak Sakhare,
Aged 40 years, Occup: Business
(Sweetmeat Shop), R/o Sai Nagar,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Distt: Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon,
Through its Managing Trustee Shri Shivshankar
S/o Sukhdeo Patil, Aged about 75 years,
R/o Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.
2. Dr. Rameshchandra s/o Champalal Dangra,
Aged about 72 years.
3. Pramod Vasantrao Ganeshpatil,
Aged adult.
4. Chandulalji S/o Kisanlalji Agrawal,
Aged adult.
5. Keshav S/o Trikamdas Tank,
Aged adult.
6. Govind S/o Sukhdeo Kalore,
Aged adult.
7. Nilkanth S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
8. Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh,
Aged adult.
9. Narayanrao S/o Yadavrao Patil,
Aged adult.
10. Shrikant S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
11. Vishveshwar S/o Shaligram Trikal,
Aged adult.
12. Pankaj S/o Gajanan Shitut,
Aged adult.
All No.2 to 12 are trustees of Plaintiff
No.1-Trust, All Nos. 2 to 12
C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 :::
WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 7 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 1863/2019
Jagdish Bhumilal Bhartiya,
Aged 65 years, Occup: Business
(Cutlery Shop), R/o Gandhi Chowk,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Distt: Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon,
Through its Managing Trustee Shri Shivshankar
S/o Sukhdeo Patil, Aged about 75 years,
R/o Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.
2. Dr. Rameshchandra s/o Champalal Dangra,
Aged about 72 years.
3. Pramod Vasantrao Ganeshpatil,
Aged adult.
4. Chandulalji S/o Kisanlalji Agrawal,
Aged adult.
5. Keshav S/o Trikamdas Tank,
Aged adult.
6. Govind S/o Sukhdeo Kalore,
Aged adult.
7. Nilkanth S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
8. Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh,
Aged adult.
9. Narayanrao S/o Yadavrao Patil,
Aged adult.
10. Shrikant S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
11. Vishveshwar S/o Shaligram Trikal,
Aged adult.
12. Pankaj S/o Gajanan Shitut,
Aged adult.
All No.2 to 12 are trustees of Plaintiff
No.1-Trust, All Nos. 2 to 12
C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 :::
WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 8 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 1899/2019
Ganesh S/o Rameshrao Deshmukh,
Aged 40 years, Occup: Business
(Sweetmeat Shop), R/o Fule Nagar,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Distt: Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon,
Through its Managing Trustee Shri Shivshankar
S/o Sukhdeo Patil, Aged about 75 years,
R/o Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.
2. Dr. Rameshchandra s/o Champalal Dangra,
Aged about 72 years.
3. Pramod Vasantrao Ganeshpatil,
Aged adult.
4. Chandulalji S/o Kisanlalji Agrawal,
Aged adult.
5. Keshav S/o Trikamdas Tank,
Aged adult.
6. Govind S/o Sukhdeo Kalore,
Aged adult.
7. Nilkanth S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
8. Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh,
Aged adult.
9. Narayanrao S/o Yadavrao Patil,
Aged adult.
10. Shrikant S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
11. Vishveshwar S/o Shaligram Trikal,
Aged adult.
12. Pankaj S/o Gajanan Shitut,
Aged adult.
All No.2 to 12 are trustees of Plaintiff
No.1-Trust, All Nos. 2 to 12
C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 :::
WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 9 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 2816/2019
Rekha Purushottam Karale,
Aged 55 years, Occup: Business
(Flowers etc.), R/o Near Burje Patil Wada,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Distt: Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon,
Through its Managing Trustee Shri Shivshankar
S/o Sukhdeo Patil, Aged about 75 years,
R/o Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.
2. Dr. Rameshchandra s/o Champalal Dangra,
Aged about 72 years.
3. Pramod Vasantrao Ganeshpatil,
Aged adult.
4. Chandulalji S/o Kisanlalji Agrawal,
Aged adult.
5. Keshav S/o Trikamdas Tank,
Aged adult.
6. Govind S/o Sukhdeo Kalore,
Aged adult.
7. Nilkanth S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
8. Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh,
Aged adult.
9. Narayanrao S/o Yadavrao Patil,
Aged adult.
10. Shrikant S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
11. Vishveshwar S/o Shaligram Trikal,
Aged adult.
12. Pankaj S/o Gajanan Shitut,
Aged adult.
All No.2 to 12 are trustees of Plaintiff
No.1-Trust, All Nos. 2 to 12
C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 :::
WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 10 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 2817/2019
Vidya Vijay Bawaskar,
Aged 39 years, Occup: Business
(Cutlery Shop), R/o Sai Nagar,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Distt: Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon,
Through its Managing Trustee Shri Shivshankar
S/o Sukhdeo Patil, Aged about 75 years,
R/o Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.
2. Dr. Rameshchandra s/o Champalal Dangra,
Aged about 72 years.
3. Pramod Vasantrao Ganeshpatil,
Aged adult.
4. Chandulalji S/o Kisanlalji Agrawal,
Aged adult.
5. Keshav S/o Trikamdas Tank,
Aged adult.
6. Govind S/o Sukhdeo Kalore,
Aged adult.
7. Nilkanth S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
8. Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh,
Aged adult.
9. Narayanrao S/o Yadavrao Patil,
Aged adult.
10. Shrikant S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
11. Vishveshwar S/o Shaligram Trikal,
Aged adult.
12. Pankaj S/o Gajanan Shitut,
Aged adult.
All No.2 to 12 are trustees of Plaintiff
No.1-Trust, All Nos. 2 to 12
C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 :::
WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 11 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 2818/2019
Amar Arun Sharma,
Aged 34 years, Occup: Business
(Cutlery Shop), R/o Bhairav Chowk,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Distt: Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon,
Through its Managing Trustee Shri Shivshankar
S/o Sukhdeo Patil, Aged about 75 years,
R/o Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.
2. Dr. Rameshchandra s/o Champalal Dangra,
Aged about 72 years.
3. Pramod Vasantrao Ganeshpatil,
Aged adult.
4. Chandulalji S/o Kisanlalji Agrawal,
Aged adult.
5. Keshav S/o Trikamdas Tank,
Aged adult.
6. Govind S/o Sukhdeo Kalore,
Aged adult.
7. Nilkanth S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
8. Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh,
Aged adult.
9. Narayanrao S/o Yadavrao Patil,
Aged adult.
10. Shrikant S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
11. Vishveshwar S/o Shaligram Trikal,
Aged adult.
12. Pankaj S/o Gajanan Shitut,
Aged adult.
All No.2 to 12 are trustees of Plaintiff
No.1-Trust, All Nos. 2 to 12
C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 :::
WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 12 Common Judgment
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 2819/2019
Harish Shamsundar Wadhokar,
Aged 40 years, Occup: Business
(Cutlery Shop), R/o Jagdamba Nagar,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Distt: Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon,
Through its Managing Trustee Shri Shivshankar
S/o Sukhdeo Patil, Aged about 75 years,
R/o Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.
2. Dr. Rameshchandra s/o Champalal Dangra,
Aged about 72 years.
3. Pramod Vasantrao Ganeshpatil,
Aged adult.
4. Chandulalji S/o Kisanlalji Agrawal,
Aged adult.
5. Keshav S/o Trikamdas Tank,
Aged adult.
6. Govind S/o Sukhdeo Kalore,
Aged adult.
7. Nilkanth S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
8. Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh,
Aged adult.
9. Narayanrao S/o Yadavrao Patil,
Aged adult.
10. Shrikant S/o Shivshankar Patil,
Aged adult.
11. Vishveshwar S/o Shaligram Trikal,
Aged adult.
12. Pankaj S/o Gajanan Shitut,
Aged adult.
All No.2 to 12 are trustees of Plaintiff
No.1-Trust, All Nos. 2 to 12
C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan,
Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 :::
WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 13 Common Judgment
Shri J.B. Gandhi, counsel for petitioner in all the petitions.
Shri A.R. Patil, counsel for the respondents in all the petitions.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE :4TH APRIL, 2019.
JUDGMENT
RULE. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Since identical orders are challenged in these writ petitions, they are being decided together by this common judgment.
2. In these writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed on the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') whereby the said application has been rejected.
3. The facts in brief are that the petitioners alongwith other plaintiffs have filed Special Civil Suit No.29 of 2012 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khamgaon seeking the relief of declaration that each plaintiff was a lawful tenant of the respective shop premises in his occupation and was entitled to protect his possession under law. Permanent injunction has been sought seeking to restrain the defendants from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs. There is also a prayer to grant damages of an amount of Rupees Five Lakhs on account of ::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 ::: WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 14 Common Judgment illegal activities of the defendants. The said suit is pending for adjudication.
The defendants in the aforesaid suit have filed separate suits in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shegaon against each petitioner under the provisions of Section 16(1)(c) and (g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, 'the said Act'). The said plaintiffs by treating each defendant as a licensee under the provisions of the said Act have sought their eviction alongwith a prayer for monetary relief based on license fees alongwith permitted increase. The said suits are pending for adjudication.
4. The defendants in the aforesaid suits filed applications in each suit under Section 10 of the Code stating therein that as the questions involved in the subsequent suits that were filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shegaon were similar to the questions involved in the prior suit filed by them, the subsequent suits be stayed till the adjudication of the earlier suit. These applications were opposed by the plaintiffs. By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the said applications on the count that the requirements of Section 10 of the Code were not satisfied. Being aggrieved by these orders, the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed.
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 :::
WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 15 Common Judgment
5. Shri J.B. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the plaints in both the suits and submitted that considering the nature of controversy involved in the suits, the adjudication of the subsequent suits were liable to be stayed till the prior suit filed by the petitioners was decided. It was his submission that in the earlier suit the plaintiffs had sought a declaration that they were lawful tenants of the premises in their occupation while in the subsequent suits, the petitioners were being proceeded against by treating them as licensees. According to him, if the earlier suit was decreed and it was declared that the plaintiffs therein were lawful tenants then the subsequent suits that were filed by treating the petitioners as licensees would not be maintainable. By relying upon the decisions in Writ Petition No.3685 of 2016 [Arvind Popatlal Dedhia Versus Subhash Popatlal Dedhia (Dead) Thr. LR's Vishal Subhash Dedhia & Others] as well as Writ Petition No.1268 of 2017 [Swamikrupa Developers Versus Kamlesh Tawari], it was submitted that the trial Court was not justified in deciding the application filed under Section 10 of the Code prior to the issues being framed in the subsequent suits. In the alternate, it was submitted that the proceedings in both the suits could be clubbed for being tried together. It was thus submitted that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 :::
WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 16 Common Judgment
6. Per contra, Shri A.R. Patil, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders. According to him, the trial Court was legally correct in observing that the requirements of Section 10 of the Code were not satisfied. Referring to the provisions of Section 33(1)(c) of the said Act, it was submitted that the relief sought in the earlier suit was not liable to be granted by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) where the subsequent suits invoking the provisions of the said Act had been filed. Similarly, the reliefs sought in the subsequent suits were beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khamgaon where the earlier suit had been filed. Placing reliance on the decisions in Manilal Premji Gala Versus Boman P. Irani & Others [2002 (Supp.) BCR 623] and Minguel Francis Dcosta Versus Sultan Gulamali Karim Chhatriwala & Others [1999 (2) Mh.L.J. 473], it was submitted that even if one of the requirements as contemplated by Section 10 of the Code was not satisfied, the subsequent suit was not liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code. He also submitted that the petitioners were trying to delay the adjudication of the proceedings for eviction on one count or the other.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the pleadings in both the suits, in my view, the trial Court was ::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 ::: WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 17 Common Judgment correct in holding that the requirements of Section 10 of the code were not satisfied in the present case. In Minguel Francis DCosta (supra) it was held as under:-
"4. .........In order to apply section 10 the Statute requires four points to be satisfied :
1. the issue must be common in both the suits;
2. the previously instituted suit should be in the same Court in which the subsequent suit is filed. It it is in different Court, the Court where earlier suit is pending must have jurisdiction to grant reliefs claimed in the subsequent suit;
3. both the suits must be between the same parties;
4. such parties must be litigating in both the suits under the same title;
If so ready any of the condition is lacking, section 10 will not have any application. Various High Courts and Supreme Court expresses the very same opinion about the said section."
The Division Bench of this Court in Manilal Premji Gala (supra) has referred to the aforesaid decision and while affirming the said view has also taken into consideration the effect of Explanations VII and VIII to Section 11 of the Code. A contention similar to the one raised in these writ petitions was also raised before the Division Bench by urging that the findings in earlier suit could operate as res judicata in the ::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 ::: WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 18 Common Judgment subsequent suit. It was held that even though Explanations VII and VIII to Section 11 of the Code were introduced subsequently, the consistent interpretation given to Section 10 of the Code in the matter of satisfying all requirements remains unchanged.
8. The Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shegaon that has been empowered under the provisions of Section 33(1)(c) of the said Act to decide the suit under provisions of the said Act is not competent to entertain the suit filed by the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khamgaon. Same is the position vice versa. It is thus clear that one of the vital requirements for the applicability of the bar under Section 10 of the Code is not satisfied. The Court at Khamgaon has no jurisdiction to grant reliefs as prayed for in the suit filed before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shegaon and vice versa.
9. In that view of the matter, it is held that the trial Court was legally correct when it proceeded to reject the application filed under Section 10 of the Code. The submission as made that the application under Section 10 of the Code ought to have been decided after the issues were framed is not liable to be accepted in the facts of the present case especially when the petitioners themselves filed the application under ::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 ::: WPs 1741/19 @ Connected WPs 19 Common Judgment Section 10 of the Code even prior to framing of the issues. In any event, as the requirements of Section 10 of the Code are not shown to have been satisfied, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. For the same reason, the alternate prayer made by the petitioners of clubbing both the suits together for being tried by one Court also cannot be accepted as both the Courts have distinct jurisdictions.
10. Consequently, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. Rule stands discharged. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
(A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) APTE ::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2020 16:17:34 :::