Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.44 seconds)Section 10 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
My Palace Mutually Aided Co Operative ... vs B. Mahesh on 23 August, 2022
13. From the arguments as has been raised by the counsel for the
petitioners, it seems that entire focus is on the provisions of Section 10
of CPC and when that is the case in the light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of My Palace Mutually Aided Co-
operative Society Vs. B.Mahesh & Others (supra), the said
application cannot be said to be maintainable, as in the said judgment, it
has been held that the inherent powers enshrined under Section 151
CPC can be exercised only where no remedy has been provided for in
any other provision of CPC. Further, it has been held that Section 151
CPC is not a substantive provision that confers the right to get any relief
of any kind rather it is a mere procedural provision which enables a
party to have the proceedings of a pending suit conducted in a manner
that is consistent with justice and equity.
The M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961
Arjunlal Bhatt Mall Gothani And Ors. vs Girish Chandra Dutta And Anr. on 3 May, 1973
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on the
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Arjunlal
Bhatt Gothani & Others Vs. Girish Chandra Dutta & Another
reported in AIR 1973 SC 2256 and R. Kanthimathi Vs. Mrs. Beatrice
Xavier reported in AIR 2003 SC 4149 as well as the orders passed by
this Court in the matters of Dayaram vs. Omkar reported in 2000 (II)
MPWN 154 and Kalisah Raikwar v. Omprakash reported in 2013
(III) MPWN 68, had argued that once there is an agreement to sale
between a landlord and a tenant, the old relationship of any kind comes
to an end and even after the cancellation of such agreement to sale, the
status of tenant is not restored as such. In other words, on the date of
execution of the aforesaid agreement to sale, the status as that of
landlord and tenant changes into a new status as that of a purchaser and
a seller and though as on date, the suit for specific performance of the
contract between the parties had been dismissed but in First Appeal,
there is an injunction granted in favour of the petitioners and in the said
suit, the issue with regard to shop given on rent was also raised by the
present respondent No.1 which was held not to be proved vide issue
No.5 and further while discussing issue No.10, which was in relation to
4
whether the said agreement to sale was null and void was held not to be
proved which was the prayer at the instance of the present respondent
No.1, thus, when the issue with regard to landlord and tenant
relationship was already an issue raised by present respondent No.1 in
the suit preferred by the father of the petitioners for specific
performance of contract, the present suit, which is in relation to eviction
of the petitioners/defendants is required to be stayed.
R. Kanthimathi And Anr. vs Beatrice Xavier (Mrs) on 8 February, 2000
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on the
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Arjunlal
Bhatt Gothani & Others Vs. Girish Chandra Dutta & Another
reported in AIR 1973 SC 2256 and R. Kanthimathi Vs. Mrs. Beatrice
Xavier reported in AIR 2003 SC 4149 as well as the orders passed by
this Court in the matters of Dayaram vs. Omkar reported in 2000 (II)
MPWN 154 and Kalisah Raikwar v. Omprakash reported in 2013
(III) MPWN 68, had argued that once there is an agreement to sale
between a landlord and a tenant, the old relationship of any kind comes
to an end and even after the cancellation of such agreement to sale, the
status of tenant is not restored as such. In other words, on the date of
execution of the aforesaid agreement to sale, the status as that of
landlord and tenant changes into a new status as that of a purchaser and
a seller and though as on date, the suit for specific performance of the
contract between the parties had been dismissed but in First Appeal,
there is an injunction granted in favour of the petitioners and in the said
suit, the issue with regard to shop given on rent was also raised by the
present respondent No.1 which was held not to be proved vide issue
No.5 and further while discussing issue No.10, which was in relation to
4
whether the said agreement to sale was null and void was held not to be
proved which was the prayer at the instance of the present respondent
No.1, thus, when the issue with regard to landlord and tenant
relationship was already an issue raised by present respondent No.1 in
the suit preferred by the father of the petitioners for specific
performance of contract, the present suit, which is in relation to eviction
of the petitioners/defendants is required to be stayed.
1