Whether S 10 of CPC relating to stay of suit bars the court to entertain subsequent suit and to pass interlocutory orders in that suit?

By virtue of Section 10 Code of Civil Procedure, a Court is prohibited from proceeding with trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit, of course, subject to other conditions mentioned therein. This Court has explained that the object of the prohibition contained in Section 10 Code of Civil Procedure is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits and to avoid inconsistent findings. However, this Rule of procedure is held not affecting the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and deal with the latter suit and does not create a bar to the institution of the suit. The Courts have also consistently held that Section 10 Code of Civil Procedure does not create a bar to the passing of interlocutory orders including those of injunction. These principles are succinctly summarised by this Court in the case of Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. MANU/SC/0350/1998 : (1998) 5 SCC 69. Therein, this Court was, of course, considering the applicability of bar Under Section 10 to summary suit Under Order XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure but, while explaining the connotation of the expression "trial" in Section 10 Code of Civil Procedure, observed as under: {Para 17}

8. Therefore, the word "trial" in Section 10 will have to be interpreted and construed keeping in mind the object and nature of that provision and the prohibition to "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". The object of the prohibition contained in Section 10 is to prevent the courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits and also to avoid inconsistent findings on the matters in issue. The provision is in the nature of a Rule of procedure and does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to entertain and deal with the latter suit nor does it create any substantive right in the matters. It is not a bar to the institution of a suit. It has been construed by the courts as not a bar to the passing of interlocutory orders such as an order for consolidation of the latter suit with the earlier suit, or appointment of a receiver or an injunction or attachment before judgment. The course of action which the court has to follow according to Section 10 is not to proceed with the "trial" of the suit but that does not mean that it cannot deal with the subsequent suit any more or for any other purpose. In view of the object and nature of the provision and the fairly settled legal position with respect to passing of interlocutory orders it has to be stated that the word "trial" in Section 10 is not used in its widest sense.

18. The above principles of law, with necessary variations, when applied to the present case, lead to the position that even if final determination of the question of maintainability (in case the constitutional validity of the impugned provision is to be decided) may depend upon the decision of Larger Bench, the supplemental proceedings in the present suit, particularly those relating to the prayer of interim relief, cannot be put on hold.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Original Suit No. 1 of 2021

Decided On: 11.05.2023

State of Meghalaya Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dinesh Maheshwari and P.V. Sanjay Kumar, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0559/2023.

Print Page

What are essential requirement for stay of subsequent suit U/S 10 of CPC?

 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 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."{Para 12} (Emphasis supplied)

23. No doubt, both the decisions have underscored, as a "fundamental test", for the purposes of Section 10 of the CPC, being whether, on a final decision reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Even so, both the decisions go on to observe that, in order for Section 10 to be applied, there must be complete identity of subject matter in both suits. It has been emphasized, in both the decisions, that the key expression in Section 10 are "directly and substantially in issue", which have been contra-distinguished from the expression "incidentally or collaterally in issue".

24. "Therefore", as held in both the decisions "Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of the subject matter in both the proceedings is identical".

25. This aspect stands further clarified in Aspi Jal MANU/SC/0307/2013 : (2013) 4 SCC 333. In para 9 of the report in Aspi Jal MANU/SC/0307/2013 : (2013) 4 SCC 333, the Supreme Court has held that "the basic purpose and the underline 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." As a result, the effort, as per the said decision, as "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 defendants from multiplicity of proceedings".

26. Interestingly, in Aspi Jal MANU/SC/0307/2013 : (2013) 4 SCC 333, the parties in all suits were the same. The courts in which the earlier suits had been instituted were competent to grant the relief sought in the latter suit. Even so, the Supreme Court observed that the issue remained to be adjudicated "as to whether the matter in issue is also directly and substantially an issue in previously instituted suit". Underscoring, once again, the importance of the expression "directly and substantially in issue", the Supreme Court went on to hold that, even if "many of the matters in issue are common, including the issue of 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". It was categorically held that Section 10 "will not apply where a few of the matters are common and will apply only when the entire subject matter of the controversy is same".

29. Apart from sameness of relief, the two other indicia, required to be cumulatively satisfied in order for the trial of a later suit to be stayed under Section 10, is identity of cause of action and identity of subject matter.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CM (M) 980/2022, 

Decided On: 16.09.2022

 Amita Vashisht   Vs. Tarun Vedi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C. Hari Shankar, J.

Dated: MANU/DE/3526/2022

Print Page

Can the court stay the subsequent suit if the cause of action and the reliefs claimed in both cases differ?

I do not know why the learned Chief Justice used the expression 'cause of action', because Section 10 speaks of not 'cause of action' but of 'matter directly and substantially in issue'. It is also not clear how two persons, quarrelling over the same transaction and bringing separate suits with respect to it against each other, can have the same 'cause of action'.

I am unable to see that the matter in issue in the two suits might not yet be substantially the same, though different reliefs might have been claimed by the two different plaintiffs on the basis of their respective cases. It is true that no written statement has yet been filed in the Calcutta suit, but what the defence in the Calcutta suit will be is fairly clear from the plaint in the Bombay suit itself as also the application made to this Court by Modi. If the Calcutta plaintiff's defence in the Bombay suit is substantially his plaint in the Calcutta suit and if the Bombay plaintiff's defence in the Calcutta suit is virtually his plaint in the Bombay suit, the matter in issue between the parties in the two suits would seem to be substantially the same. The fact that one is a suit under the agreements and the other is a suit de hors the agreements does not make a substantial identity of the subject-matter per se impossible. The basis of the defence in the Bombay suit and the basis of the claim in the Calcutta suit appear to be both fraudulent misrepresentation and if the defence succeeds in Bombay, nothing will be left of that suit and, similarly, if in consequence the case of misrepresentation succeeds in Calcutta, this suit will be practically decided, the only, enquiry remaining being an enquiry as to the damages claimed in addition to a refund of the money paid. Similarly, again, if the defence fails in the Bombay suit, the basis of the Calcutta suit will be wholly destroyed. In my view, the principal matter in issue in the Calcutta suit is directly and substantially in issue in the Bombay suit, which is a suit previously instituted and that an un-necessary duplication of proceedings with the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered will occur, if the Calcutta suit is not stayed.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

A.F.O.D. No. 64 and A.F.O.O. No. 80 of 1955

Decided On: 01.03.1957

Shorab Merwanji Modi and Ors. Vs. Mansata Film Distributors and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.B. Chakravartti, C.J. and Sarkar, J.

Author: P.B. Chakravartti, C.J.

Citation: AIR 1957 Cal 727,MANU/WB/0188/1957

Print Page

Should the court stay subsequent proceeding if the decision passed in the previous suit will be res judicata in the subsequent suit?

Section 10 says:

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 British India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed....

3. The section nowhere states that the subject-matter of both the suits must be the same, and in a Calcutta case reported in Sm. Jinnat Bibi v. Howarah Jute Mill Co. Ltd. MANU/WB/0070/1932 : AIR1932Cal751 , it was clearly pointed out that the section makes no reference to the subject-matter or the cause of action and that the test of the applicability of Section 10 to a particular case is whether on a final decision being reached in the previous suit such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR

 Krishnarao Namdeorao  Vs. Shridhar Ramchandra Kale

Coram: Puranik, J.

Decided On: 12.07.1946

Citation: AIR 1947 Nagpur 154,MANU/NA/0080/1946

Print Page

Whether court can suo moto stay subsequent suit as per S 10 of CPC?

 So far as the contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that

under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for stay of suit, the application is

required to be filed in the same suit and in the instant case,

the application was filed in other suit while the trial Court has

directed for stay of petitioner's suit, therefore, the Court below

erred in exercising the powers under Section 10 of the C.P.C, is

concerned, in Munnilal Vs. Sarvajeet AIR 1994 Rajasthan

22, it has been held that the Court can suo motu the stay the

second suit under Section 10 of the C.P.C. So it is clear that to

exercise of power under Section 10 of the C.P.C., an application

is not required.{Para 18}

Law laid down : To exercise of power under Section10 of the C.P.C., an application is not required to be filed.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Misc. Petition No. : 600 of 2019

 Smt. Pooja Soni  Vs  Dinesh Kumar 

Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar (Verma)

Dated: 12 /11/2021

Print Page

Supreme Court: Court can entertain interlocutory applications in stayed suit

The learned Counsel for the respondents stated that on account of the stay of the suit, his clients are prevented to take any direction or order by way of interlocutory application. The stay of the trial of the suit does not preclude the respondents to seek such appropriate interlocutory reliefs as may be available and warranted in the facts and circumstances.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 11192 of 1995

Decided On: 16.11.1995

Amita Kaushish Vs. Sanjay Kaushish and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.

Citation: 1996 SCC (7) 19, JT 1995 (8) 507,MANU/SC/1333/1996

Print Page

What is distinction between O 7 R 10 of CPC(Return of plaint) and S 10 of CPC(Stay of suit)?

At the outset, it is necessary to note a submission, of Mr. Sai Deepak, that Order VII Rule 10, and Section 10, of the CPC, were required to be read together. This submission deserves, in my opinion, to be rejected even at this stage. A bare reading of Section 10, and Order VII Rule 10, of the CPC, reveals that the submission of Mr. Sai Deepak is, in fact, contrary to the statutory scheme, as contemplated in the said provisions. Section 10 deals with stay of a pending suit, and reads thus:

"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 the suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying the suit founded on the same cause of action."

Order VII Rule 10, per contra, deals with "return of plaint", and reads thus:

"10. Return of plaint.-

(1) Subject to the provisions of rule 10A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.

Explanation.-For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that the Court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in the suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-rule.

(2) Procedure on returning plaint.-On returning of plaint, the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and returned, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it."

33. The plain words of Section 10, and Order VII Rule 10, of the CPC, disclose that they contemplate distinct eventualities, and envisage distinct consequences. Section 10 does not, in any manner, impact the maintainability of the suit, which is required to be stayed thereunder. The Supreme Court has, in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara MANU/SC/1063/2004 : AIR 2005 SCC 242, held that Section 10 applies only where "the whole of the subject matter in both the suits is identical". The fundamental test, which would determine the applicability, or otherwise, of Section 10 has, in the said decision, been identified as "whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such a decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit". The guiding philosophy, behind the provision is, quite obviously, the inadvisability of two courts dealing with identical disputes, between the same parties, concurrently. The progress of the later suit has, therefore, statutorily been required to await the outcome of the suit preferred earlier in point of time. As against this, Order VII Rule 10A specifically contemplates a situation in which the suit, imperilled by the provision, should not have been instituted in the court in which it was instituted. The provision, therefore, relates to the point of time, and the stage, when the suit was instituted in the court, in stark contradistinction with Section 10, which impedes the trial of the suit, but does not, even indirectly, visualize any lacuna in the institution of the suit. The consequence, of Section 10 being applicable to a particular case, is stay of the trial in that case. The plaint is not returned to the plaintiff, for institution elsewhere. As against this, Order VII Rule 10 stipulates that, where the suit was instituted in a court, in which it ought not to have been instituted, the plaint shall be returned to the plaintiff, for being instituted in the proper court. Invocation of Order VII Rule 10, therefore, results in removal, completely, of the suit, from the records of the court, where it was erroneously instituted, whereas invocation of Section 10 merely places the trial of the suit in, as it were, a state of suspended animation.

34. The contention of Mr. Sai Deepak that Section 10 and Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC are required to be read together is, therefore, fundamentally misconceived, and is accordingly rejected.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

I.As. 2594, 2595, 2596, 4274 and 5209/2020 in CS (COMM.) 611/2019

Decided On: 15.07.2020

FMC Corporation  Vs. NATCO Pharma Limited

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C. Hari Shankar, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/1380/2020

Print Page

Whether subsequent suit can be stayed if application for setting aside exparte decree is pending?

 The object behind enacting Section" 10 of CPC would be that in regard to same property and issues involved between the same party, conflicting findings may not come by the courts. In the present case, the suit filed by the respondent herein has already been decided by ex parte judgment and decree dated 7.4.2003 and only an application under Order 9 Rule 13 is pending adjudication. The question which arises for consideration by this Court is whether mere pendency of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC would tantamount to pendency of suit in the court. In view of this Court, since Original suit no. 487 of 2002 filed by the defendant has been decided by ex-parte judgment and decree dated 7.4.2003, therefore, an application filed by the plaintiffs for setting aside the ex-parte decree cannot be treated as pendency of suit. Thus, the learned revisional court has committed. illegality in allowing the revision partly and in deciding issue no. 3 in favour of defendant and staying the proceedings of original suit no. 49 till the decision in misc. application no. 67 of 2003 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 964 of 2015

Decided On: 05.04.2019

Cooper Pharma  Vs.  Shamshad Ahmad

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Lok Pal Singh, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 Uttar 111

Print Page

Notes on Stay of Suit S 10 CPC

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 28[India] from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.

Read judgments on stay of suit: Click here

Print Page

Whether court can stay suit proceeding as per S 151 of CPC?

Thus, section 10 of the Code bars the court from proceeding 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. The object of the section is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. Thus, section 10 of the Code specifically provides for the contingencies under which a subsequent suit can be stayed, viz., (i) where the issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit; (ii) such suit is between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title; (iii) 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. There is no other provision in the Code which provides for stay of the suit by the court where the suit is instituted. Section 10 of the Code clearly exhausts the contingencies in which such power can be exercised. Therefore, if powers under section 151 of the Code are exercised, the same would clearly be in conflict with what had been expressly provided in section 10 of the Code and against the intentions of the legislature. Considering the scheme of the Code, it is apparent that the legislature intended the provisions of section 10 to be exhaustive insofar as the prohibition against proceeding with the subsequent suit is concerned. Therefore, the exercise of inherent powers under section 151 of the Code to stay the proceedings in contingencies not contemplated under section 10 of the Code would be against the legislative intention and against the interests of justice. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to relief claimed in the application either under section 10 or section 151 of the Code.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/Special Civil Application No. 20580 of 2018

Decided On: 21.01.2019

HDFC Bank Limited Vs.  Ashima Limited

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Harsha Devani and Dr. A.P. Thaker, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2019 Guj 64

Print Page

Whether court can impose condition to implead legal heirs while staying subsequent suit?

 The basic purpose of this section is to protect a person from multiplicity of proceedings as also to avoid conflict decisions. Section 10 CPC is an independent provision. The same is untrammeled by any provision of CPC. Provisions of Section 10 and Order 22 Rules 3 & 4 CPC operate in different field. They embrace the fields which are covered by the conditions embodied therein. The provisions of Order 22 CPC do not in any way circumscribe or limit the operation of Section 10 CPC. If the conditions enumerated in Section 10 CPC are satisfied, then the Court shall stay the further proceeding of the suit. Whether the suit will fail or abate, it is not the determining factor for deciding the application u/s. 10 CPC. While deciding the application u/s. 10 CPC, the Court cannot impose any condition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No. 987 of 2014

Decided On: 05.12.2018

 Binapani Jethi  Vs. Bijay Kumar Jethi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Akshaya Kumar Rath, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 Orissa 17

Print Page

Whether subsequent eviction suit is liable to be stayed if both suits have same grounds for eviction?

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 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 in the third suit has been sought on the ground of non-user for six months prior to the 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.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2908 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14808 of 2012)

Decided On: 05.04.2013

 Aspi Jal and Anr. Vs. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.K. Prasad and V. Gopala Gowda, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2013 SC 1712,(2013) 4 SCC333,2013(5) MHLJ147 SC

Print Page

Whether succession certificate proceedings can be stayed till decision of civil suit?

Undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner has initiated the proceedings as per the provisions prescribed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1925') for grant of succession certificate with regard to the service dues of late Jagarniya as she is her sole legal heir. During its pendency, a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No. 62-A of 2016 was instituted by the petitioner for declaration of title and injunction with regard to the immovable property left by said Jagarniya.
 During the pendency of aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 10 of the CPC, for staying the said succession proceedings till decision of the said civil suit.
 Upon due consideration of the said application, the trial Court by its order impugned dated 26.9.2016 has rejected the said application on the ground that as per the provision of Section 10 of the CPC, only the suit could be stayed and not the proceeding initiated under the Act, 1925. The trial Court has observed further that since both the proceedings are different with each other, therefore, the application as filed is liable to be rejected. In consequence the said application filed under Section 10 of the CPC is rejected.
 In any case, the provision of Section 10 of the CPC would be attracted only when the decision of a suit operates as a res judicata in a subsequently instituted suit. The nature of both the matters are not only entirely different with each other but the jurisdiction of the Courts are also different. In such circumstances, the principles of res judicata would also not be attracted, so as to stay the proceedings initiated under the Act, 1925.
On the basis of the precedent as well as the principle, it has become evident that the proceedings, in a regular suit and the proceedings which are summary in nature contemplated by Section 372 of the Act, 1925 are entirety different and the latter proceedings would not be covered by Section 10 of the CPC. The object of issuance of a certificate and its effect is entirely different which would not result into deciding the issue finally between the parties. Consequently, the orders impugned as passed by the Courts below deserve to be and are hereby affirmed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

Writ Petition No. 190 of 2017

Decided On: 09.03.2017

 Hirman Bai Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Koriya Forest Division and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Citation: AIR 2017 Chhatis 117

Print Page

Whether proceeding for grant of succession certificate can be stayed during pendency of civil suit?

The short question involved in this case is whether Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, "the Code") is applicable to the proceedings initiated under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for brevity "the Act") for obtaining a succession certificate.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the successor-in-interest of the petitioner Paramjit Kumar was impleaded as defendant in Civil Suit No. 313 of 1996 filed on 8.9.1995 seeking declaration to the effect that he was entitled to his share in F.D. Rs. of Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and locker maintained at State Bank of Patiala, Sector 22, Chandigarh. Defendant-respondent No. 1 Mrs. Kamal Seth did not contest the suit and she was proceeded ex parte. She, however, filed a succession case bearing No. 17/30.4.1998 under Section 372 of the Act for issuance of a succession certificate in respect of the same F.D.Rs. and locker mentioned herein above. The successor-in-interest of the petitioner contested the suit as well as succession case. The issues in both proceedings are similar, parties are the same and relief claimed in both the cases is also the same i.e. respective shares of the parties in the F.D.Rs. and locker. On that basis petitioner filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code for staying the trial/proceedings of the succession case during the pendency of the civil suit.

This can be examined from another angle. The grant of Succession Certificate falls under Part-X of the aforesaid Act. Its range is between Sections 370 to 390. It is significant to refer hereSection 387. This declares the effect of decisions made under this Act and the liability of holder of such certificate. It lays down that any decision made under this Part (Part-X) upon any question of right between the parties shall not bar the trial of the same question in any suit or other proceedings between the same parties. It further records that nothing in this Part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debts or security to account therefore to the person lawfully entitled thereto. Section 387 is quoted hereunder:-

"Section 387 Effect of decisions under this Act, and liability of holder of certificate thereunder.- No decision under this part upon any question of right between any parties shall he held to bar the trial of the same question in any suit or in any other proceedings between the same parties, and nothing in this part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debts or security or any interest or dividend on any security, to account therefore to the person lawfully entitled thereto.

16. This leaves no room for doubt. Thus any adjudication made under Part-X of this Act which includes Section 373 does not bar the same question being raised between the same parties in any subsequent suit or proceeding. This provision takes the decisions under Part-X of the Act outside the purview of Explanation VIII to Section 11. This gives protective umbrella to ward off from the rays of resjudicata to the same issue being raised in a subsequent suit or proceedings."

6. On the basis of the precedent as well as the principle, it has become evident that the proceedings, in a regular suit and the proceeding which are summary in nature contemplated bySection 372 of the Act are entirety different and the latter proceedings would not be covered bySection 10 of the Act. The object of issuance of a certificate and its effect is entirely different which would not result into deciding the issue finally between the parties. Therefore, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Monica Bibli Sood vs Mrs. Kamal Seth And Ors. on 18 March, 2004

Equivalent citations: AIR 2004 P H 366, IV (2004) BC 539, (2004) 138 PLR 69

Bench: M Kumar

Print Page

Supreme court; Every High Court must give due deference to enunciation of law made by another High Court

The Defendant-Appellant finally filed a Notice of Motion in
the Bombay High Court as late as 14.12.2005, in which it was successful in
being granted an injunction as recently as on 31.3.2012. We may reiterate that
every High Court must give due deference to the enunciation of law made by
another High Court even though it is free to charter a divergent direction.
However, this elasticity in consideration is not available where the litigants arethe same, since Sections 10 and 11 of the CPC would come into play. Unless
restraint is displayed, judicial bedlam and curial consternation would inexorably
erupt since an unsuccessful litigant in one State would rush to another State in
the endeavour to obtain an inconsistent or contradictory order. Anarchy would
be loosed on the Indian Court system. Since the Division Bench of the Bombay

High Court is in seisin of the dispute, we refrain from saying anything more.

 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1018 OF 2006

Neon Laboratories Ltd. V Medical Technologies Ltd. & Ors.

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
Dated;October 5, 2015.
Citation;(2016)2 SCC 672

Print Page

Whether court can grant interim relief even though case is stayed U/S 10 of CPC?

 Jurisdiction of a Civil Court being plenary in nature, if it is
seized of a suit, provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 are clearly
attracted and whether or not the Court is in a position to conduct the trial, it can
always grant interim relief by exercising these powers. On this principle, even
where the trial of a suit is stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
the Courts exercise these powers and grant interim relief. Our Court recognized
this in the case of Senaji Kapurchand vs. Pannaji Devichand3
, holding as
follows:
“ The first point taken was that as an order has been made
under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code staying the suit owing
to the pendency of another suit between the same parties in the
Court at Bellary, therefore no interlocutory order could be made in
this suit. But under Section 10 it is provided that 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 That does not prevent the Court from
making interlocutory orders, such as orders for a Receiver, or an
injunction, or, as in this case, an order for attachment before
judgment.”
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1022 OF 2014
IN
SUIT NO. 573 OF 2014
The Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust & Ors.
vs.
Dipesh Mehta & Ors. 

 CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

 PRONOUNCED ON : 29 OCTOBER 2015
Citation; AIR2016(NOC)167 Bom

Print Page

Good legal article on S10 and 11 of CPC and Section 115 of the Evidence

http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/1st%20LEGAL%20WORK%20SHOP%20PAPER%20SUMMARY%2015-09-2015%20-%201%20to%2021.pdf

Print Page

When court can stay subsequent suit?

In the instant case, both the parties are seeking possession of
the same suit land. The respondent filed his suit for preventing
further interference and nuisance of the petitioner seeking
declaration and injunction. The petitioner, by its later suit, claims
that the same suit property has been illegally possessed by the
respondent and he has been illegally dispossessed.
11. Mr.Gaikwad has also relied upon the case of ASPI Jal and
another Vs.Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor, (2013) 4 SCC 333. The
facts before the Apex Court in the case of ASPI Jal (supra) were that
the grounds for eviction were based on non user of premises.
Different periods of nonuser,
were identified and based on each
period of nonuser,
an independent cause of action arose, for which
an independent suit was filed. The Apex Court concluded that since
the causes of action would be distinct in each case as they pertain to
different periods of non user, the applicability of Section 10 of the
CPC was turned down. The facts of the case before the Apex Court
are totally different and distinct than the facts before this Court.

12. In my view, therefore, the British India case and Aspi Jal case
(supra) do not assist the petitioner. The cause of action in this
petition is substantially and directly in issue. The impugned order of
the Trial Court does not suffer from illegalities or any perversities.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9382 OF 2013

Dnyanoba Balbhim Salunke Vs Sarjerao Dhondiba Salunke 

(CORAM : RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 12/03/2014
Citation;2015(1)ALLMR367

Print Page

Whether decree passed in contravention of S 10 of CPC (Stay of suit) is nullity?

The proceedings in the trial of a suit have to be conducted in accordance with provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 10 CPC no doubt lays down that 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. However, mere filing of an application under section 10 CPC does not in any manner put an embargo on the power of the court to examine the merits of the matter. The object of the section is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. The section enacts merely a rule of procedure and a decree passed in contravention thereof is not a nullity. It is not for a litigant to dictate to the court as to how the proceedings should be conducted, it is for the court to decide what will be the best course to be adopted for expeditious disposal of the case. In a given case the stay of proceedings of later suit may be necessary in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and harassment of parties. However, where subsequently instituted suit can be decided on purely legal points without taking evidence, it is always open to the court to decide the relevant issues and not to keep the suit pending which has been instituted with an oblique motive and to cause harassment to the other side.

Supreme Court of India

Pukhraj D. Jain & Ors vs G. Gopalakrishna on 16 April, 2004

Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, G.P. Mathur

Print Page