- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
The Bharat Nidhi Ltd., Delhi v. Shri Shadi Lal .
Factual and Procedural Background
On 21st December 1948, Shadi Lal filed a suit against Bharat Nidhi Limited seeking recovery of Rs. 1,25,000 for damages due to dispossession of a ginning factory from 25th September 1947 to 4th December 1948. While this suit was pending, the plaintiff instituted a second suit for damages for the period 21st December 1948 to 21st September 1950 on similar grounds. The trial Court's decision in the first suit was contested and appeals by both parties were pending before this Court. On 7th November 1952, the defendant applied to stay the second suit under sections 10 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing the matters in controversy were the same in both suits. The trial Court declined to stay the second suit and dismissed the application. The defendant sought revision before this Court challenging that order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to stay the second suit on the ground that the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in the first suit.
- Whether the Court has inherent power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the second suit despite section 10 not applying.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The matters in controversy in both suits are exactly the same.
- Under sections 10 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the second suit should be stayed pending the decision of the first suit.
Plaintiff's Arguments
- This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Jamini Nath Mallik v. Midnapur Zemindary Company, 1923 27 C.W.N 772 | Held that suits for recovery of successive debts for different periods do not involve substantial identity of subject-matter under section 10. | Supported the view that the two suits in the present case do not have complete identity of subject-matter and thus section 10 does not apply. |
| Roshan Din v. Mst. Malan Bibi, A.I.R 1938 Lah. 502 | Endorsed the principle that complete identity of entire subject-matter is required to invoke section 10. | Reinforced the Court’s conclusion that the matters in issue in the two suits are not substantially the same. |
| Mohd. Afzal v. Mst. Sardar Begum, A.I.R 1949 Lah. 69 | Supported the requirement of substantial identity of subject-matter for section 10 applicability. | Used to affirm that different relief periods in suits mean section 10 is not attracted. |
| Velur Munuswami Mudaliar v. Darwaja Raghupati, A.I.R 1940 Mad. 7 | Confirmed that section 10 requires complete identity of subject-matter and parties. | Applied to determine that the two suits differ in subject-matter and relief periods. |
| Chanan Kuer v. Sahdeo Singh, A.I.R 1929 Oudh 341 | Reiterated the principle of complete identity for section 10 to apply. | Supported the Court’s interpretation limiting section 10’s scope. |
| Dwarka Das v. Governor General of India in Council, A.I.R 1947 Lah. 28 | Held that courts may stay proceedings under section 151 even if section 10 does not apply. | Formed the basis for the Court’s decision to stay the second suit under inherent powers. |
| Kodumal Jethanand v. Tilak Ram, A.I.R 1929 Lah. 12 | Supported the exercise of inherent powers under section 151 to stay proceedings. | Reinforced the Court’s authority to stay the second suit despite non-applicability of section 10. |
| Dhanraj Yugulkishore & Co. v. Babulal Ramchandra, A.I.R 1943 Bom. 206 | Affirmed the Court’s power under section 151 to grant stay on grounds of pendency of another suit. | Utilized to justify the stay of the second suit pending appellate decision in the first suit. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by examining the statutory provision under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibits a court from proceeding with a suit if the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. The Court interpreted “matter in issue” broadly to include all controversies and reliefs claimed. However, relying on the precedent from Jamini Nath Mallik and several High Court decisions, the Court noted that suits concerning recovery of damages for different time periods do not constitute the same subject-matter for the purpose of section 10.
Since the two suits in question involved claims for different periods and therefore different reliefs, the Court concluded there was no substantial identity of subject-matter. Consequently, section 10 did not apply to stay the second suit as a matter of right.
Nonetheless, the Court acknowledged the inherent power of courts under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant a stay of proceedings to avoid multiplicity of litigation and conflicting decisions. Citing Dwarka Das and other precedents, the Court exercised this power to stay the second suit until the appellate Court decided the appeals arising from the first suit. This approach balanced the absence of statutory bar under section 10 with the practical need to avoid parallel litigation on closely related matters.
Holding and Implications
The Court held that section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to stay the second suit since the matters in issue are not directly and substantially the same. However, exercising its inherent powers under section 151, the Court ordered a stay of the second suit pending the appellate decision on the first suit.
The direct consequence of this decision is that the second suit will not proceed until the appeals in the first suit are resolved, thereby preventing duplicative litigation and potential conflicting judgments. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the Court reaffirmed existing principles on the scope of section 10 and the discretionary use of section 151 powers.
Bhandari, C.J:— This petition raises a short point upon the interpretation of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The facts of the case are simple and not in dispute. On the 21st December, 1948 one Shadi Lal brought an action against the Bharat Nidhi Limited for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 on account of damages sustained by the plaintiff for being dispossessed of a ginning factory during the period 25th September, 1947 to the 4th December, 1948. While this suit was pending in Court the plaintiff brought another suit for damages on similar grounds in respect of the period 21st December, 1948 to the 21st September, 1950.
3. The decision of the trial Court in the prior action was hotly contested and the appeals preferred by the plaintiff and the defendant are pending in this Court. On the 7th November, 1952 the defendant made an application that as the matters in controversy in both the suits were exactly the same, the second suit should be stayed, under the provisions of sections 10 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court declined to accede to the request and consigned the application to the Record Room. The defendant is dissatisfied with the order and has come to this Court in revision.
4. It is a well known rule of practice that a Court is at liberty to stay proceedings in a suit on account of pendency of another action when the parties, the subject-matter, the issues involved and the relief claimed in both the actions are substantially the same and when the judgment in one case will effectually dispose of the matters in controversy in the other. This rule has been accorded statutory recognition by the enactment of section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code which is in the following terms:—
“10. 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 the Provinces having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of the Provinces established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before his Majesty in Council.”
5. The expression “matter in issue” appearing in this section is wide enough to embrace all matters in controversy between the parties including the relief claimed. In Jamini Nath Mallik v. Midnapur Zemindary Company . 1923 27 C.W.N 772., Rankin C.J, expressed the view that when two suits are for the recovery of cesses due for different periods, there is no substantial identity of the subject-matter. He observed as follows:—
“But it must be observed that a judgment for the recovery of subsequent cesses does not not differ merely as being for a different form of relief. It is the same kind of relief for an entirely separate subject-matter namely, a debt which was not in existence at all at the time of the previous suit. It does not follow, because the words ‘the same relief’ are no longer in section, that section 10 is applicable to suits for recovery of successive rents.”
6. The above view has been endorsed by the High Courts at Lahore and Madras and by the Chief Court of Oudh in Roshan Din v. Mst. Malan Bibi . A.I.R 1938 Lah. 502., Mohd. Afzal v. Mst. Sardar Begum . A.I.R 1949 Lah. 69., Velur Munuswami Mudaliar v. Darwaja Raghupati . A.I.R 1940 Mad. 7. and Chanan Kuer v. Sahdeo Singh . A.I.R 1929 Oudh 341.. As pointed out by Achhru Ram, J., in Dwarka Das v. Governor General of India in Council . A.I 1947 Lah. 28., in order to attract the provisions of section 10, there must be a complete identity of the entire subject-matter of the two suits or in other words, that every matter in dispute in one suit should be directly and substantially in issue in the other. As the matters in issue in the two suits now under consideration are not substantially the same the reliefs claimed in the two suits are for different periods and as the decision in the one action will not determine all the questions in the other, it seems to me that the provisions of section 10 do not apply and the petitioner was not entitled to claim as of right that the proceedings in the second suit should be stayed.
7. Mr. Bahl, who appears for the petitioner, invites my attention to a number of decisions in which it has been held that even though the provisions of section 10 do not apply, it is within the power of the Court, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 151, to grant a stay of proceedings on the ground of pendency of another action, vide Dwarka Das v. Governor General of India in Council, Kodumal Jethanand v. Tilak Ram . A.I.R 1929 Lah. 12. and Dhanraj Yugulkishore & Co. v. Babulal Ramchandra . A.I.R 1943 Bom. 206.. Following these decisions I am of the opinion that the proceedings in the second suit instituted by the plaintiff should be stayed until such time as the appellate Court has given its decision in regard to the matters in controversy arising in the first suit. I would order accordingly.
8. In view of this order Civil Revision No. 169 of 1953 is infructuous and is hereby dismissed.
9. There will be no order as to costs.
10. Order accordingly.
Alert