Stay Of Second Suit- Court Can Suo Motu Excercise Power U/S 10 CPC, Filing Of Application Isn't Required: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) on Friday ruled that for the purpose of the exercise of the power under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (to stay a second suit), an application is not required to be filed before the Court and the Court can, on its own, stay the second suit.

The Bench of Justice Rajendra Kumar (Verma) further observed that a court has inherent power to consolidate suits between the same parties in which the matter in issue in both the suits is substantially the same.

The matter in brief

The Petitioner submitted that she is the owner of a property consisting of agricultural land but she got mutated the name of her husband (respondent No.2/defendant No.1) in the revenue record.

Further, she claimed that under the garb of the document of the loan transaction, respondent No.1 got a sale deed executed by respondent No.2 (Husband of the petitioner) in his favour on April 23, 2016.

The petitioner, therefore, filed a suit for declaration that she is the sole owner of the suit property and that the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.1 by her husband is null and void. She also prayed for a decree of a permanent injunction.

On the other hand, Respondent No.1 also filed a suit for a permanent injunction on the strength of the sale deed dated 23.04.2016 allegedly executed in his favour by respondent No.2 (husband of the petitioner).

Essentially, respondent No.1 filed the suit on 31st July 2017, while the petitioner filed the suit on 02nd August 2017 i.e. after two days, therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 10 of CPC praying for the stay of the suit filed by the respondent No.1.

However, the trial court disposed of the application by directing the stay of the petitioner's suit instead (during the pendency of the suit filed by the respondent No.1)

Consequently, she moved the High Court against the order of the Court of First Civil Judge Class-I contending that Court failed to notice that it was her application, wherein she had prayed for the stay of the respondent's suit, and at best, the trial Court could have rejected the application.

Importantly, she sought to argue that the trial Court failed to see that for the stay of the petitioner's suit, an application ought to have been filed in her suit.

Further, it was also submitted that the trial Court had failed to consider that under Section 10 of CPC for a stay of the suit, an application is required to be filed in the same suit, however, in the instant case, the application was filed in another suit, but the trial Court had directed for a stay of the petitioner's suit.

Lastly, she also submitted that the trial Court should have seen that since both the suits are pending in the same court, the interest of justice would have been met by directing consolidation of hearing of both the suits instead of staying the proceedings of one suit.

Court's observations

Referring to Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court opined that 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 to litigate, then the subsequent suit can be stayed by the trial Court.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that in both the suits in question, the issues are not the same, although some parties and suit property in both the suits are the same.

The Court further observed that while respondent No.1 had claimed relief of permanent injunction, on the other hand, the petitioner had sought relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Thus, the Court ruled that the reliefs claimed in both the suits are different.

Further, referring to Munnilal Vs. Sarvajeet AIR 1994 Rajasthan 22, the Court, on the question of the power of Court to stay the second suit, held thus:

"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"

Now, regarding the question of consolidation of suits, the Court, at the outset, observed that Section 10 was never intended to take away the inherent power of the Court to consolidate suits for the interests of justice.

Further, in the instant case, noting that suit property and most of the parties are the same in both suits, matter in issue is also same to some extent, the Court, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary delay and protraction of litigation, ordered the consolidation of both suits in the interest of justice.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order