Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishnu Prasad Goyal vs Shri Ankit Gupta on 15 March, 2022
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
M.P. No.131/2022
Vishnu Prasad Goyal S/o Ghisalal Goyal V/s. Ankit Gupta & Others
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRANAY VERMA
M.P. No.131/2022
Petitioner : Vishnu Prasad Goyal S/o Ghisalal Goyal
Respondents : Ankit Gupta S/o Gopal Gupta & Others
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rakesh Kumar Laad, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R
(Passed on 15.03.2022)
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.12.2021 passed in Civil Suit No.53-A/2016 by the 24th Additional District Judge, Indore whereby he has rejected an application under Section 151 of the CPC filed by the petitioner for stay of further proceedings of the present suit.
3. The petitioner has filed a Civil Suit on 15.04.2016 against the respondents for specific performance of contract dated 23.07.1997 executed by Late Laxman in respect of land measuring 8.33 Acre, Survey No.392, 394, 433 situated at Village Musakhedi, Tehsil and District Indore which has been registered as Civil Suit No.59-A/2016 and is pending before 11th Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore which is the Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 2022.03.15 18:39:10 IST 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.P. No.131/2022 Vishnu Prasad Goyal S/o Ghisalal Goyal V/s. Ankit Gupta & Others latter suit.
4. The respondent No.1 had also filed a Civil Suit on 09.05.2008 for specific performance of contract dated 17.10.2006 executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of the land as aforesaid before 24th Additional District Judge, Indore registered as C.S. No.53-A/2016 which is the former suit.
5. On 01.12.2021, the petitioner filed an application before the District Judge, Indore under Section 24 of the CPC for transfer of the suit from the Court of 11th Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore and the suit from the Court of 14th Additional District Judge, Indore to any other Court for their consolidation and decision by the same Court on the ground that judgement in one suit shall affect the judgment in the other suit. The said application is pending adjudication.
6. On 01.12.2021, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 151 read with Section 10 of the CPC before the court below in the former suit for stay of further proceedings of the suit till decision of his application under Section 24 of the CPC submitting that the proceedings of the suit deserve to be stayed till decision of his suit or till decision of his application under Section 24 of the CPC. The respondents 2 & 3 filed their reply to the said application.
7. By the impugned order dated 03.12.2021 the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the trial Court by observing that though the lands in both the suits are same, but parties to the same and the causes of action for both of them are different hence proceedings of the suit cannot be stayed.
Signature Not Verified8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject SAN Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 2022.03.15 18:39:10 IST 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.P. No.131/2022 Vishnu Prasad Goyal S/o Ghisalal Goyal V/s. Ankit Gupta & Others matter and the crucial question for determination in both the suits is precisely the same. The lands in both the suits are same and the decision of any of the suit shall have a direct effect on the decision of the other suit. The proceedings of the former suit deserve to be stayed till decision of the former suit or till decision of his application under Section 24 of the CPC. In exercise of powers under Section 151 of the CPC, proceedings of the former suit can also be stayed. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jadhav Rao V/s. Onkar Prasad AIR 1975 Allahabad 413, of the Gauhati High Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission V/s. Ganesh Prasad Singh and another AIR 1981 Gauhati, Prakash Chandra Soni V/s. Anita Jain 2002 (2) MPLJ 121 and Electronic Media Corporation V/s. Bank of India and Another 2002 (64) DRJ 725.
9. From a perusal of the plaints of the latter as well as the former suit it is apparent that the subject matter of determination in both the suits is different. The latter suit has been filed for specific performance of contract dated 23.09.1997 whereas the former suit has been filed for specific performance of contract dated 17.10.2006. The present petitioner is not a party in the former suit. Though the land in dispute in both the suits is the same, but the cause of action for institution of both the suits and the parties therein are different.
10. While it is true that in cases which do not strictly fall within the purview of Section 10 of the CPC, further proceedings of the suit can be stayed in exercise of powers under Section 151 of the CPC, but even while exercising such powers it is only the further proceedings of the subsequent suit which can be stayed. While exercising such Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 2022.03.15 18:39:10 IST 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.P. No.131/2022 Vishnu Prasad Goyal S/o Ghisalal Goyal V/s. Ankit Gupta & Others powers by invoking Section 151 of the CPC the proceedings of the former suit cannot be stayed as that would be traveling beyond the scope of powers of Section 10 itself. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that while exercising such powers proceedings of the former suit can also be stayed is hence unacceptable. In none of the cases relied upon by him has it been held that while exercising powers under Section 151 of the CPC the Court can stay the proceedings of the former suit.
11. Thus the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for stay of further proceedings of the previous suit. The petitioner shall have the liberty of pursuing the application under Section 24 of the CPC filed by him. As a result, the petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE ns Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 2022.03.15 18:39:10 IST