Title
of my Research Case Law: Pukhraj D. Jain and
Vs G. Gopalkrishna
AIR 2004 SC 3504
PART A
Author:
Harshada Rajendra Thakur
1.
ABSTRACT / PURPOSE:
This
is the case law based on the Section.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
provides the rule with regard to stay of suits where things are under
consideration or pending adjudication by a court. The section reads as: “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.”The
purpose of the section is to bring finality in the judgment and to avoid the
contradictory decision by the two different court, as there is a very good
possibility that in case when matter is simultaneously being decided by
different courts of concurrent jurisdiction, the courts may come up with
different decisions and then it will be very difficult to finalize which
decisions to be abided by.
Thus, in this research of about the case
law will come to know exactly the facts of the case, Judgement, Issues of the
case, Observation and Decision of the caseand lastly the conclusion.
2.Facts of the Case and Judgement of the Case
:
Through a sales agreement, the owners of the suit
property i.e., appellants no 6 to 10 transferred the property to Dr. G.
Gopalkrishna (respondent no 1) on 5.12.1974 for a consideration of
Rs.1,42,500/- and received Rs.42,500/- by way of advance. The suit property was
a residential building at Jayanagar, Bangalore.Respondent No 1 took the
possession of the ground floor of the property and paid a certain part of the
money in advance. Later, he issued a legal notice rescinding the agreement to
sale and claiming back the money he had advanced. After some periodof time, he
filed an amendment petition claiming that the suit be converted to specific
performance of the agreement of sale.
This application was rejected by the trial court
on 3.12.1984 on the ground that the suit for specific performance had become
barred by limitation. The Revision Petition preferred against the said order
was dismissed by the High Court at the admission stage on 29.5.1985.
Judgement:
Trial Court Decision: On 2.4.1988 the respondent no.1 filed another
suit against appellant nos. 6 to 10 in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore
for specific performance of the agreement dated 5.12.1974. In this suit issue
no.3 relating to the bar of limitation and issue no.4 relating to the
maintainability of the suit were framed. The respondent no.1 also filed an
application under section 10 CPC seeking stay of his own suit on the ground
that the issues involved were also directly and substantially in issue in a
previously instituted suit being by the appellants nos.1 to 5 for his eviction
from the ground floor of the house and for possession. The Addl. City Civil
Judge, Bangalore dismissed the suit after deciding issues no.3 and 4 wherein he
held that the suit was barred by limitation and the same was not maintainable.
High Court Decision: An appeal was filed before the High Court who
allowed the appeal.
According to High Court, it was obligatory on the
part of the Additional Civil Judge to have considered the application moved
under section 10 CPC at the first instance. Since the Additional Civil judge
did not pay any heed to notice under section 10 CPC, the order of the judge was
wholly illegal.
Supreme Court Decision:This appeal by special leave has been preferred
by the defendants against the judgment and order dated 17.3.1997 of High Court of
Karnataka by which the Regular First Appeal preferred by the plaintiff was
allowed and case was remanded to the trial court with certain directions.
Issues of the Case:
1.Was it
obligatory for the Additional Civil Judge to take into consideration an
application filed under section 10 of CPC?
2. Whether application under Sec.10 of C.P.C.
should be considered at first instance before deciding issues?
3. Whether
Respondent No 1 was entitled to specific performance of the sales agreement
executed in his favour by appellant no 6 to 10.
Sections and provisions involved Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 Section 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 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 from trying a suit founded on the same cause of
action. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 16 Personal bars to relief.
Observations and Decision: Decision The appeal was accordingly allowed with
costs throughout and the judgment and order of the High Court dated 17.3.1997
was set aside. The decree dismissing the suit passed by the trial court was
affirmed.
Conclusion:It can be concluded that Section 10, however, does not take away power
of the court to examine the merits of the matter. If the court is satisfied
that subsequent suit can be decided purely on legal point, it is open to the
court to decide such suit. The test for applicability of Section 10 is whether
the decision in a previously instituted suit would operate as res judicata in
the subsequent suit. If it is so, the subsequent suit must be stayed. It is
only the trial and not the institution of the subsequent suit which is barred
under this section. The subsequent suit, therefore, cannot be dismissed by a
court, but is required to be stayed. Thus, it lays down a rule of procedure,
pure and simple, which can be waived by a party. Hence, if parties waive their
right and expressly ask the court to proceed with the subsequent suit, they
cannot afterwards challenge the validity of the subsequent proceedings. This
section aims to avert inconvenience to the parties and gives effect to the rule
of res judicata.
0 Comments