Company Limited vs Himadri Specialty Chemical on 30 March, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Company Limited vs Himadri Specialty Chemical on 30 March, 2026

Bench: Aniruddha Roy

               In the High Court at Calcutta
                   Commercial Division
                      Original Side
      Judgment (2)

PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY


                                          IA NO. GA/1/2022
                                       [OLD NO. CS/196/2022]
                                        In CS-COM/419/2024

                                       NATIONAL INSURANCE
                                        COMPANY LIMITED
                                               Vs
                                   HIMADRI SPECIALTY CHEMICAL
                                              LTD

                                       IA NO. GA-COM/5/2025
                                       [OLD NO. CS/196/2022]
                                        In CS-COM/419/2024

                                       NATIONAL INSURANCE
                                        COMPANY LIMITED
                                               Vs
                                   HIMADRI SPECIALTY CHEMICAL
                                              LTD


For the plaintiff             : Mr. Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Adv.
                                Ms. Dolon Dasgupta, Adv.
                                Ms. Arijita Ghosh, Adv.
                                Ms. Sretapa Sinha, Adv.
                                Mr. Siddhartha Chamaria, Adv.
                                Mr. Partho Proteem Das, Adv.

For the defendant             : Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv.
                                Mr. Shayak Mitra, Adv.
                                Mr. Amit Kumar Nag, Adv.
                                Mr. Partha Banerjee, Adv.


Heard on            : March 30, 2026

Judgment on         : March 30, 2026
                      [In Court]
                                            2



ANIRUDDHA ROY, J :

FACTS:

1. This is an application filed by the defendant in the instant suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC"), inter alia, praying for following reliefs :-

"(a) An order be passed staying the trial of the instant suit, being CS(COM) No. 419/2024 (Old No. C.S. 196 of 2022) (National Insurance Company of India

- Vs.- Himadri Specialty Chemical Limited);

(b) Stay of all further proceedings in the instant suit being CS(COM) No. 419/2024 (Old No. C.S. 196 of 2022) (National Insurance Company of India - Vs.-

Himadri Specialty Chemical Limited), till disposal of this application;

(d) Appropriate orders may be passed as to the costs and/or incidentals to this application;

(e) Such further order or orders by passed and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

2. The plaintiff in the instant suit is the landlord (hereinafter, "landlord") and the defendant is the tenant/lessee (hereinafter, "tenant/lessee") in respect of premises No. 8, IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

India Exchange Place, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 (hereinafter, "said premises") as morefully and particularly described in the plaint.

3. The plaint case is that the plaintiff on April 4, 2012 executed a lease deed in respect of the second floor of the premises in favour of the defendant/lessee for a period of 10 years with effect from August 16, 2010 to August 15, 2020, on the terms mentioned in the lease deed. The lease deed is available as Annexure A at page 17 to the plaint.

4. During currency of the lease, on March 7, 2017 Annexure C at page 25 to the Section 10 application, landlord had served a notice upon the lessee claiming a sum more than Rs.2,00,00,000/- on account of recoverable proportionate Kolkata Municipal Corporation taxes together with interest. Landlord also informed that the leasehold right of the lessee would be terminated with the end the month June, 2017 due to deliberate breach of the lease terms on the part of the lessee and as such, the lessee was required to quit and handover peaceful, vacant khas possession of the premises to the landlord on July 1, 2017, unless, the said municipal taxes are paid.

5. The lessee being the defendant herein on or about June 21, 2017 filed a suit being Title Suit No. 819 of 2017 (hereinafter, "the first suit filed by the lessee") before the IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

learned City Civil Court at Calcutta praying, inter alia, as follows:

"(a) Declaration that the letter dated 7th March, 2017 alleging termination of tenancy of the plaintiff on the ground of nonpayment of the alleged municipal tax, pending final adjudication of the same by Kolkata Municipal Corporation as sought for by the defendant itself is absolutely premature and not in conformity with law and is void, premature, illegal, invalid, contrary to the terms of the lease deed and not binding upon the plaintiff.

(b) Permanent injunction do issue restraining the defendant, its men and/or agents, and/or servants from giving any effect or further effect to the said purported letter dated 7th March, 2017 issued by the defendant's advocate on the plaintiff.

(c) Specific performance of the Agreement dated 4th of April, 2012 as pleaded in paragraphs 6 hereinabove;

(d) Receiver;

(e) Costs;

(f) Injunction

(g) Such other and further order and/or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper."

The plaint is available at page 28 to Section 10 application. The said Title Suit is still pending.

6. On June 12, 2026, landlord issued a notice upon lessee, Annexure C at page 48 to the plaint, whereunder the IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

landlord informed that it was not inclined to renew the lease term with the lessee and requested lessee to vacate the premises on or before August 15, 2020 in terms of the lease agreement. The landlord also demanded the pending dues with interest up-to-date.

7. Challenging the notice dated June 12, 2020, the lessee had filed the second suit being Title Suit No. 532 of 2020 (hereinafter, "the second suit filed by the lessee") before the learned City Civil Court at Calcutta, inter alia, praying for following reliefs:

"a) A decree for declaration that the intention and decision of the defendant expressed in the letter dated 12th June 2020 is malafide, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff;

b) A decree for declaration that the Guideline of Govt.

of India dated 30th May 2002 with regard to restriction on arbitrary use of powers of the defendant to evict genuine tenant like the plaintiff is binding upon the defendant;

c) A decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and/or their men, agents and servants from giving any effect or further effect to the letter of 12th June 2020;

d) A decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and/or their men, agents and servants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property;

e) Injunction;

IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

f) Attachment;

g) Receiver;

h) Costs;

i) Such further or other orders."

The plaint is available at page 49, Annexure D to the instant plaint.

8. The landlord/plaintiff, thereafter, had served another notice dated August 24, 2020, Annexure E at page 66 to the instant plaint. In paragraph 9 to the instant plaint, the plaint case is that on or about August 24, 2020 the landlord made further up-to-date demand on August 24, 2020. In the said letter, it has been acknowledged that a sum of Rs.2,80,00,000/- had been paid by the lessee which was adjusted against a total claim of Rs.14,94,00,000/-. The said letter also speaks that after the agreed period of lease, an occupational charge at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per day was claimed by the landlord with effect from August 16, 2020.

9. Landlord/plaintiff then on or about August 1, 2022 has filed the instant suit with the following prayers:-

"a) Leave under Section 12A of Commercial Court's Act, 2015;

b) A decree for recovery of khas possession of 12,303 square feet + 345 square feet aggregating to 12,648 square feet at the 2nd floor of the Premises No. 8, India Exchange Place, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata - 700001 within the limit of the Kolkata IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

Municipal Corporation Ward No. 41, Kolkata - 700 001;

c) A decree for a sum of Rs.17,84,34,573.40 towards arrear charges as indicated in para 11 above:

d) A decree on the mesne profit in respect of suit premises from filing of suit till recovery of the possession;

e) Receiver;

f) Injunction;

g) Commission;

h) Any other relief or reliefs as Your Lordships may think fit and proper."

10. In the above circumstances, the defendant in the instant suit being the lessee has filed the instant application praying for stay of the instant suit.

SUBMISSIONS:

11. Mr. Shayak Mitra, learned Advocate led by Mr. Anirban Ray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant/lessee referring to all three plaints, submits that the subject matter of all three plaints is the same premises which had been leased out to the lessee by the landlord/plaintiff under the admitted lease document and the landlord now claims khas possession of the leased out premises from the lessee on the basis of the notice to quit dated June 12, 2020 which is IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

under challenge in the said second suit filed by the lessee pending before the learned City Civil Court.

12. Referring to the prayers from the instant plaint, filed by the landlord and the averments made in the plaint, learned Counsel for the applicant/ tenant submits that the basis of eviction claimed by the plaintiff/landlord, as pleaded in paragraph 15 of the instant plaint is the said notices i.e. the notices dated March 7, 2017, June 12, 2020 and last notice dated August 24, 2020.

13. Referring to the said notice dated August 24, 2020, Mr. Anirban Ray, learned Senior Advocate submits that the said notice does not speak for claiming possession from the lessee and the same only speaks on fiscal demand by the landlord on account of alleged unpaid rent including maintenance charges, KMC taxes and other allied charges allegedly payable by the lessee under the lease terms.

14. Referring to the said notice, Mr. Anirban Ray, learned Senior Advocate submits that the said notice specifically speaks that the landlord had already issued notice upon lessee dated June 12, 2020 to vacate the premises on or before August 15, 2020 but the lessee did not vacate it.

15. Mr. Anirban Ray, learned Senior Advocate then submits that since the said notice to vacate dated June 12, 2020 is under challenge in the said second City Civil Court suit filed by the IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

lessee, unless a conclusive adjudication comes in the said second City Civil Court suit, the instant suit should be stayed.

16. He submits that in the event, the said second City Civil suit succeeds and the said notice to quit dated June 12, 2020 is declared to be invalid and illegal, then the said decision would be res judicata on the issue and the basis of the instant suit being the said notice, nothing will be surviving in the instant suit in favour of the landlord claiming eviction of the lessee.

17. Mr. Anirban Ray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the lessee submits that the fundamental test to attract Section 10 of CPC is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits is identical. The expression used in Section 10 of CPC is the matter in issue is directly or substantially in issue in the previous instituted suit is to be looked into. If it is found that the matter in issue in the previously instituted City Civil Suit and/or the suits, are directly or substantially in issue in the instant suit, filed by the landlord before this Court, then the instant suit being a later one should be stayed.

18. In support, he has relied upon the following decisions:

IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

i) In the matter of: National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences Vs. C.Parameshwara reported at (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 256;

ii) In the matter of: Aspi Jal and Another Vs. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor reported at (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 333 and

iii) In the matter of: Sajjadanashin Sayad Md. B.E. ED.

(D) by LRs Vs. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and Ors.

reported at (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 350.

19. On a comparative study of three plaints, Mr. Anirban Ray, learned Senior Advocate submits that the sole issue in the instant suit is the eviction of the lessee claimed by the landlord with the consequential reliefs on the basis of the notices dated June 12, 2020 and March 7, 2017 which are already in issue before the two City Civil Court suits filed by the lessee.

20. Landlord has not claimed recovery of possession in the notice dated August 24, 2020. Therefore, the instant suit should be stayed by virtue of operation of Section 10 of CPC.

21. Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the landlord/plaintiff in the instant suit and the defendant in the City Civil Court suits has placed all three plaints in detail.

IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

22. Referring to the reliefs claimed in the first City Civil Court suit of 2017 filed by the lessee he submits that reliefs were claimed by the lessee in the said first suit with regard to the notice dated March 7, 2017 and specific performance of the lease agreement dated April 4, 2012. He submits that the said notice dated June 12, 2020 was not a subject matter in that suit, as the said notice was even not born that time.

23. He then submits that various reliefs have been claimed in the second City Civil Court suit which, inter alia, includes reliefs with regard to the said notice dated June 12, 2020 as also for a declaration on the guidelines of government of India dated May 30, 2002 with regard to restriction on arbitrary use of powers of the landlord to evict genuine tenant like the lessee herein, is binding upon the landlord. Substantial reliefs had been claimed therein. Mr. Banerjee submits that in the instant suit, the landlord has claimed simplicitor khas possession along with consequential mesne profit and other monetary reliefs against the lessee on account of the alleged unauthorised occupation of the lessee at the suit premises. He submits that after expiry of the lease, the landlord issued the said notice dated August 24, 2020 and then filed the instant suit. The notice dated June 12, 2020 which is the subject matter in issue in the second City Civil Court suit was a notice for the period when the lease had not expired.

IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

Therefore, the instant suit is based on the notice dated August, 24, 2020, which is a notice issued after the lease had expired. The said notice would show that the landlord has claimed the amount from the lessee for the entire period of lease, which remained unpaid and/or payable by the lessee. Therefore, the issue involved in the instant suit is neither in issue or substantially in issue with either of the pending City Civil Court suit.

24. Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the landlord then refers to the provisions from Section 10 of CPC and submits that if any particular issue amongst all others are same or similar or in issue or substantially in issue with that of a previous suit between the same parties with regard to the same subject matter leaving aside all other issues in the subsequent suit, Section 10 does not permit the subsequent suit to be stayed.

25. Referring to section 10 of the Code, Mr. Banerjee further submits that subject matter in issue in the subsequent suit, the instant suit herein, must be directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit/ suits. In that way the subject matter of two suits must be identical, merely because one of the questions in issue is the same as in the previous suits, would not make the subject matter identical with that of the IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

subsequent suit. In support, he has relied upon the following decisions:

(i) In the matter of: Adhis Chandra Sinha versus Hindusthan Gas & Industries Ltd. and another reported at AIR 1985 Cal 154 and,

(ii) In the matter of: Bepin Behary Mozumdar versus Jogendra Chandra Ghosh reported at AIR 1917 Cal

248.

26. In the light of the above submissions, Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee submits that on meaningful reading of the instant plaint and the reliefs claimed thereunder, it would be evident that both the prayers (b) and (c) to the plaint are mutually exclusive and are independent in nature and even if the decision in the second City Civil Court suit becomes res judicata on the issue of notice to quit dated June 12, 2020, then the same may have a bearing on prayer (b) to the instant suit but prayer (c) may run independently for adjudication. Therefore, there is no merit in the said Section 10 application and the same should fail.

DECISION:

27. After hearing rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, at the outset, this Court thinks it fit to quote the provisions of Section 10 of CPC for ready reference:

IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

"10. Stay of suit.- 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, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.

Explanation.- The pendency of a suit in a foreign court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action."

28. The admitted facts are that the plaintiff herein is the landlord in respect of the suit premises where the defendant is lessee in respect of the second floor thereof. The lease deed dated April 4, 2012 is also admitted by and between the parties. The tenure of lease is also admitted for ten years as would be evident from the said document.

29. The three notices are also admitted namely notice dated March 7, 2017 which is under challenge in the first City Civil Court suit filed by the lessee, the second one is dated June 12, 2020 under which the landlord had asked the lessee to give possession back of the demised premises, which is under IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

challenge in the second City Civil Court suit and the third notice is dated August 24, 2020 under which the landlord has alleged monetary claim against the lessee.

30. The notice dated June 7, 2017 issued by the landlord principally claiming the alleged KMC taxes and charges and other monetary claims with the intention of the landlord that in default, the lessee would have vacated the premises. The said notice is under challenge in the first City Civil Court suit.

31. On a close scrutiny of the said notice dated June 12, 2020, this Court finds that the said notice was a notice to quit, served upon the lessee by the landlord, which is under challenge in the said second City Civil Court suit.

32. On a close scrutiny of the notice dated August 24, 2020, this Court finds that it refers to the previous notice to quit dated June 12, 2020 and the rest is the money claimed against the lessee by the landlord.

33. On a comparative reading of the three plaints and their reliefs, it appears to this Court that the notice to quit dated June 12, 2020 is the only notice served upon the lessee by the landlord asking possession of the demised premises and the same is under challenge in the second City Civil Court suit.

34. On a meaningful reading of paragraphs 10 and 15 of the instant plaint, it appears to this Court that the land lord has claimed occupational charges against the lessee for the period IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

of August 16, 2020 to May 31, 2022 and paragraph 15 of the plaint shows that the plaintiff claims recovery of possession of the premises in terms of its notices. The three notices which have already been referred to above are admittedly the notices issued by the landlord upon the lessee and no further notice was there. On close scrutiny of the said notices, this Court is of the considered view that only notice dated June 12, 2020, which is under challenge in the second City Civil Court suit, is the notice to quit.

35. Now comes the reliefs claimed by the landlord in the instant plaint. Prayer (b) is for recovery of possession, which is to be proceeded with pursuant to the said notice to quit dated June 12, 2020, which is under challenge in the said second City Civil Court suit. Prayer (d) to the plaint depends on the fate of prayer (b) to the plaint. Therefore, the second City Civil Court suit being prior one if a conclusive decision comes in favour of the lessee in the said second City Civil Court suit declaring the notice to quit dated June 12 2020 to be illegal and void, then automatically the same would operate as res judicata on the issue claiming recovery of possession in prayers (b) and then (d) to the instant suit.

36. Prayer (c) to the instant suit would largely depend if the lessee is declared to be an unauthorised occupant at the premises. In the event, the first City Civil Court suit and the second City IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

Civil Court suit succeed, then the scenario would be different and the lessee may not be treated as an unauthorised occupant.

37. If the instant suit is stayed for the time being till the first two City Civil Court suits are conclusively decided, the landlord will not suffer any prejudice. In the event the suits at City Civil Court fail, automatically the instant suit would revive and the trial will proceed on merit of the instant suit. In the event, this suit is allowed to be proceeded and the two City Civil Court suits are also proceeded simultaneously, then there may be conflict of judicial pronouncements and conflict of judicial discipline, which is not warranted in the adjudicatory process.

38. In the matter of: National Institute of mental Health and Neuro Sciences (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under:

"8. The object underlying Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. The object underlying Section 10 is to avoid two parallel trials on the same issue by two courts and to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

previously instituted suit. The language of Section 10 suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in the civil court and it cannot apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute. The object of Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are "the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue" in the previous instituted suit. The words "directly and substantially in issue" are used in contradistinction to the words "incidentally or collaterally in issue". Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

thereby, that the whole of the subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical."

39. In the matter of: ASPI JAL AND ANOTHER (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under:

"12. As observed earlier, for application of Section 10 of the Code, the matter in issue in both the suits have to be directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit but the question is what "the matter in issue" exactly means? As in the present case, many of the matters in issue are common, including the issue as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession of the suit premises, but for application of Section 10 of the Code, the entire subject-matter of the two suits must be the same. This provision will not apply where a few of the matters in issue are common and will apply only when the entire subject-matter in controversy is same. In other words, the matter in issue is not equivalent to any of the questions in issue. As stated earlier, the eviction is the third suit has been sought on the ground of non-user for six months prior to the IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

institution of that suit. It has also been sought in the earlier two suits on the same ground of non-user but for a different period. Though the ground of eviction in the two suits was similar, the same were based on different causes. The plaintiffs may or may not be able to establish the ground of non-user in the earlier two suits, but if they establish the ground of non-user for a period of six months prior to the institution of the third suit that may entitle them the decree for eviction. Therefore, in our opinion, the provisions of Section 10 of the Code is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case."

40. In the matter of SAJJADANASHIN SAYED MD. B.E. EDR.(D) (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under :

"18. In India, Mulla has referred to similar tests (Mulla, 15th Edn.. P. 104). The learned author says: a matter in respect of which relief is claimed in an earlier suit can be said to be generally a matter "directly and substantially"

in issue but it does not mean that if the matter is one in respect of which no relief is sought it IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

is not directly or substantially in issue. It may or may not be. It is possible that it was "directly and substantially" in issue and it may also be possible that it was only collaterally or incidentally in V issue, depending upon the facts of the case. The question arises as to what is the test for deciding into which category a case falls? One test is that if the issue was "necessary" to be decided for adjudicating on the principal issue and was decided, it would have to be treated as "directly and substantially" in issue and if it is clear that the judgment was in fact based upon that decision, then it would be res judicata in a latter case (Mulla, p. 104). One has to examine the plaint, the written statement, the issues and the judgment to find out if the matter was directly and substantially in issue (Ishwer Singh v. Sarwan Singh 2 and Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v.

Mohd. Hanifa). We are of the view that the above summary in Mulla is a correct statement of the law.

IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

19. We have here to advert to another principle of caution referred to by Mulla (p. 105);

"It is not to be assumed that matters in respect of which issues have been framed are all of them directly and substantially in issue. Nor is there any special significance to be attached to the fact that a particular issue is the first in the list of issues. Which of the matters are directly in issue and which collaterally or incidentally, must be determined on the facts of each case. A material test to be applied is whether the court considers the adjudication of the issue material and essential for its decision."

41. In the matter of Adhis Chandra Sinha (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the facts of that case, was of the view that the previous suit filed in Alipur Court even if succeeded and the disputed notice failed resulting in failure of one of the grounds in the High Court suit and the rest of the grounds in the High Court suit being independent could have proceeded with. In the facts of the instant case, as already discussed above, if the notice to quit dated June 12, 2020 is determined to be illegal and void in the pending second City Civil Court suit, prayer (b) in the instant suit praying for eviction by the IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

landlord would become barred by res judicata and consequently redundant. The second City Civil Court suit was filed prior in point of time. The rest of the reliefs in the instant suit are consequential to the prayer for eviction. Hence the decision on the issue in the second City Civil Court suit would have a material bearing on the reliefs claimed in the instant suit, as the issues are directly and substantially in issue. Similarly prayer (c) in the instant suit would depend whether the lessee will be declared as an unauthorized occupant or not which is an issue in the pending first City Civil Court suit while adjudicating the notice of the landlord dated March 7, 2017. Therefore, the issues involved in the instant suit are directly and substantially in issue in those two previous City Civil Court suits. Thus, the ratio laid down In the matter of:

Adhis Chandra Sinha (supra) and Bepin Behari(supra) are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

42. For adjudicating an application filed under section 10 of the Code, the primary authority and obligation of the Court is to examine whether the matter in issue in the subsequent suit is directly or substantially in issue with the previous suit. This provision will not apply where a few of the matters in issue are common and will apply only when the entire subject matter in controversy is same. The matter in issue may not be IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

equivalent to any of the questions in issue. The use of negative expression in section 10 i.e. no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit, makes the provision mandatory and the Court before which subsequent suit has been filed, is prohibited from proceeding with the trial of that suit if the conditions laid down under section 10 of the Code are satisfied. The intention of the framers of the provision of section 10 of the Code and the purpose of enactment thereof with its underlying object is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations, when the cause of action in the two pending suits are such where the issue in the subsequent suits is directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit where, inter alia, the parties are same.

43. In the facts of the instant case, as already discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the reliefs claimed in the instant plaint shall depend and/or substantially depend on the result of the pending previous two City Civil Court suits. The final decisions in the said two previous City Civil Court suits would have a material bearing on the reliefs claimed in the instant suit, as the entire issue in the instant suit is in issue and substantially in issue with the pending two previous City Civil Court suits.

IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

44. In view of the forgoing reasons and discussions, the instant suit shall remain stayed till the two suits pending in the City Civil Court are conclusively decided in accordance with law.

45. However, this Court expects that the two suits pending before the City Civil Court shall be decided as expeditiously as possible.

46. Resultantly, this application being IA GA-COM/5/2025 stands allowed, without any order as to costs.

(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.) Sbghosh/Arsad IA NO. GA/1/2022 & GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/419/2024 A.R., J.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court