Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S. O.P. Steel Traders vs M/S. Steel Strips Ltd. on 8 May, 1992
Equivalent citations: AIR1992P&H217, (1992)102PLR124, AIR 1992 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 217, (1992) 2 PUN LR 124, (1992) 2 LANDLR 523, (1992) 2 RRR 349, 1992 PUNJ LJ 645
ORDER
1. The petitioner-firm has filed this revision petition against the order dated 28-1-1991 passed by Sub-Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana, by which the proceedings have been stayed under S. 10 read with S. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, in a civil suit filed by the petitioner-firm.
2. The petitioner-firm filed a suit on 15-12-1989 against the respondent-company for recovery of Rs. 9,39,719-84 paise as principal and interest on the allegations that the petitioner-firm dealing in various types of irons and strips and doing its business at Ludhiana and that the petitioner-firm supplied goods (scrap) to the respondent-company, but the respondent-company did not pay the price of the same.
3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant-respondent-company which filed an application under 10 read with S. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for stay of the suit on the allegations that respondent-company had instituted a suit against the petitioner-firm, which is pending in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Chandigarh, for recovery of Rs. 8,22,939/- by way of damages and the said suit was filed on 11-9-1989. The respondent-company also placed on the record a certified copy of the plaint showing about the pendency of the suit at Chandigarh.
4. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial Court held that the suit filed by the petitioner-firm at Ludhiana relates to the same transaction; that the suit filed at Chandigarh is prior to the suit filed by the petitioner-firm at Ludhiana; and that the proceedings in the suit filed by the petitioner-firm were stayed in order to avoid contradictory judgments.
5. Mr. M.R. Midha, counsel for the petitioner-firm, has argued that mere possibility of passing of contradictory judgments is no ground for staying the proceedings in a suit, under S. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has further submitted that the matter in issue in the later suit at Ludhiana is not directly and substantially the same as in the suit at Chandigarh; that the suit at Ludhiana is for the goods supplied, which were accepted by the respondent-company after thorough check by its technicians in its own laboratory; that, on the other hand, in the civil suit filed at Chandigarh, the matter involved is as to whether the respondent-company has suffered any loss; and that, therefore, there is not even the slightest chance of the issues in the two suits being substantially the same. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner-firm has relied upon Messrs Golwala Preme Chand Bhai Kali Dass Allayawadi v. Messrs Kundan Lal Ram Lal, (1966) 68 Pun LR 172.
6. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, counsel for the respondent-company, has argued that since the suit filed by the petitioner-firm at Ludhiana relates to the same transaction and the suit field by the respondent-company at Chandigarh is prior to the suit filed by the petitioner-firm at Ludhiana, therefore the proceedings in the suit filed by the petitioner-firm have to be stayed to avoid contradictory judgments and that the order passed by the trial Judge under S. 10 read with S. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, is in accordance with law and, therefore, the same is not liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent-company has further submitted that the respondent has filed written statement in the trial Court after the admission of the revision petition; that the suit filed by the respondent at Chandigarh is not a simple suit for recovery of damages; and that the respondent has also made a claim for recovery of money. He has further submitted that Messrs Golwala Preme Chand Bhai Kali Dass Allayawadi's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because in that case the first suit was filed for recovery of certain amount and rendition of accounts in the Court at Surat, whereas the second suit was filed for recovery of certain amount on account of damages for breach of contract and the matter in issue was not directly and substantially the same.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent-company has argued that S. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure says that no Court shell 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 litigation 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. In support of his argument, he has relied upon M/s. Dewas Textile Mills Private Limited v. M/s. Mahavir Spinning Mills Limited, 1986(1) Pun LR 51.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that where the requirements of S. 10, Code of Civil Procedure, are not satisfied, recourse to S. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, is permissible for staying a suit, provided the Court is satisfied that such a recourse is necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, and it is not violative of any express or specific provision of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other law applicable to the case to be stayed. In support of his argument, he has relied upon Subho Ram Kalita (deceased by L.Rs) v. Dharmeswar Das Koch, AIR 1987 Gau 73.
9. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I hold that the suit filed by the petitioner-firm at Ludhiana relates to the same transaction regarding which a suit has been filed by the respondent-company at Chandigarh. One of the tests of the applicability of S. 10, Code of Civil Procedure, to a particular case is whether, on the final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision operates as res judicata in the subsequent suit and there can be no doubt that if this test is applied, S. 10, C.P.C. must be held to be applicable to the present case, Since the suit filed by the respondent-company is prior to the suit filed by the petitioner-firm at Ludhiana, therefore the trial Court was bound to stay the proceedings of the suit of the petitioner-firm under S. 10 read with S. 151, Code of Civil Procedure.
10. Messrs Golwala Preme Chand Bhai Kali Dass Allayawadi's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, whereas M/s. Dewas Textiles Mills's case (supra) and Subho Ram Kalita's case (supra) are fully applicable to the facts of the present case.
11. In view of the above discussions, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.
12. Revision dismissed.