O.P Steel Traders Petitioner, v. Steel Strips Ltd. .

A.S Nehra, J. — The petitioner-firm has filed this revision petition against the order dated 28.1.1991 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana, by which the proceedings have been stayed under Section 10 read with Section 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 as principal and interest on the allegations that the petitioner-firm is 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 Section 10 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for stay of the suit on the allegations that the 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 the mere possibility of passing of contradictory judgments is no ground for staying the proceedings in a suit, under Section 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 Gohvala Prem Chand Bhai Kali Dass Allayawadi v. Kundan Lal Ram Lal, 1966 PLR 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 filed 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 Section 10 read with Section 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 me 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 Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure says 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 are any of mem 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 Dewas Textile Mills Private Limited v. Mahavir Spinning Mills Limited 1986 (1) PLR 51.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that where the requirements of section 10, Code of Civl Procedure, are not satisfied, recourse to Section 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) and others v. Dharmeshwar Dos Koch, AIR 1987 Gauhati 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 Section 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 m the subsequent suit and there can be no doubt that if this test is applied, Section 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 Section 10 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure.

10. Golwala Preme Chand Bhai Kali Dass Allayawadi's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, whereas Dewas Textile Mills's case (supra) and Subho Ram Kalita's case (supra) are fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

In view of the above discussions, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.