Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Section 10 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
National Institute Of Mental Health And ... vs C. Parameshwara on 13 December, 2004
9. In the case at hand, according to Mr. Kulkarni, if the
former suit is adjudicated, nothing would remain for
adjudication in the subsequent suit instituted by defendant
Nos.3 and 4. Since the essential test stands satisfied, the
learned Civil Judge ought to have stayed the proceedings in
SCS/36/2018. Instead, the learned Civil Judge was swayed by
the observations made by this Court in WP/1413/2022 in a
completely different context. To buttress these submissions, Mr.
Kulkarni placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences
vs. C. Parameshwara1.
Aspi Jal And Anr vs Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor on 5 April, 2013
-WP7538-2023.DOC
the provisions of Section 10 of the Code, it is further required that the
Court in which the previous suit is pending is competent to grant the
relief claimed. 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 in which the subsequent suit has been filed
is prohibited from proceeding with the trial of that suit if the
conditions laid down in Section 10 of the Code are satisfied. The basic
purpose and the underlying object of Section 10 of the Code is to
prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously
entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect
of same cause of action, same subject matter and the same relief. This
is to pin down the plaintiff to one litigation so as to avoid the
possibility of contradictory verdicts by two courts in respect of the
same relief and is aimed to protect the defendant from multiplicity of
proceeding."
1