Madras High Court
S.D. Dhandapani vs The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas ... on 29 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: AIR2002MAD442, [2004]121COMPCAS669(MAD), (2002)2MLJ656, AIR 2002 MADRAS 442, (2002) 2 MAD LJ 656, (2002) 3 BANKCAS 470, (2003) 2 BANKJ 116, (2002) 3 CURCC 414, (2004) 121 COMCAS 669
Author: M. Karpagavinayagam
Bench: M. Karpagavinayagam
ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. The petitioner is the defendant.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.58 of 19992 for recovery of money. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/defendant filed an application in I.A.No.299 of 1993 under Section 10 C.P.C. for stay of the proceedings of the suit until final adjudication in Company Petition No.80 of 1991 pending on the file of this Court. The said application was dismissed. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also gone through the impugned order.
4. At the outset, I shall state that Section 10 C.P.C. would not at all apply in this case, because the company petition pending before this Court cannot be termed to be a suit and therefore, Section 10 C.P.C. cannot be invoked by the Court, in which the suit for recovery of money is pending, to stay the proceedings of the suit.
5. As per Section 10 C.P.C., no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties.
6. The word 'suit' is important for our purpose. As per the provisions of Order 4 Rule 1 C.P.C. every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court or such officer as it appoints in its behalf. Therefore, the word 'suit' ordinarily means a civil proceeding instituted by presenting a plaint.
7. In a company proceedings, no plaint is presented and hence, it cannot be regarded as a proceeding based on a suit. Therefore, when the proceedings are not based on a suit, they cannot be regarded as a trial of a suit and hence, the suit for recovery of money is pending before the trial Court could not be stayed.
8. This is very clear from the reading of Section 10 C.P.C. While interpreting the said Section, the Rajasthan High Court gave the same ruling in PUNJAB NATION BANK v. GAJENDRA SINGH (2001 (1) Civ.C.R. 431 (Raj.)); JAIPUR VASTRA VYOPAR SANGH LTD v. SHYAM SUNDER LAL PATODIA ; and LADU LAL JAIN v. MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA (1997 DNJ (Raj) 260).
9. It is now submitted that the said suit has been transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. As held by the Supreme Court in ALLAHABAD BANK v. CANARA BANK (AIR 2000 S.C. 1535), the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is exclusive and as such, the jurisdiction of civil Court or Company court is ousted.
10. In view of the above ruling, there is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.855 of 1997 stands dismissed.