Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2006
  6. /
  7. January

Dr. Alok Kumar vs Sarabjeet Singh And Ors.

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 August, 2006

JUDGMENT / ORDER

ORDER Umeshwar Pandey, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This revision challenges the order of court below dated 27.5.2006, whereby the Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been decided in the negative and against the revisionist petitioner.
3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the decision on issue No. 1 relates to applicant's plea for staying the proceeding of the present S.C.C. suit filed subsequent to the Regular Suit No. 307 of 2003 between the same parties.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the regular Suit No. 307/2003 has been filed by the defendant of this suit claiming himself as tenant in the premises and the opposite party while defending that suit has come with a case that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the plaintiff of that suit claiming as tenant has occupied the premises in illegal manner. It is also submitted that in the subsequent suit, which is for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment filed by the opposite party the aforesaid three issues have been decided. The plaintiff has impleaded the revisionist as defendant describing as a subtenant of the main tenant, the defendant No. 1 Dr. Rajeev Anand. Learned Counsel thus, on the basis of the aforesaid facts appearing in both the suits, has tried to emphasise that since the common questions are available there in both the suits regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the court below should have stayed the proceeding of the present suit, which was subsequently filed in the Court of Judge Small Causes. It is further contended that the court below while passing the impugned order deciding the relevant issue No. 1, on this point has not dealt with this point and has answered the issue in the negative on the ground that the courts where the two suits are pending do not have concurrent jurisdiction. The earlier suit is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) whereas the subsequent suit is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge/J.S.C.C. The valuation of both the suits are quite different and, therefore, the subsequent suit is not cognizable by the Court where the earlier suit is pending. It is on this basis that the issue has been decided in the negative.
5. From a perusal of the impugned judgment given on issue No. 1, it is found that the court below has not adverted to the point if the common questions are available in both the suits for decision as in both the cases the Courts have to find out the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Since that aspect of the matter has not been dealt with and considered at all and issue has been decided in the negative only on the ground that the two Courts where the suits are pending, are of not having concurrent jurisdiction, the decision so rendered appears to be incomplete and evasive. The Court has to find out the real crux of the matter involving import of Section 10, C.P.C. which might call upon the Court to stay the proceeding of the subsequently instituted suit. If it is found that in both the suits one issue is directly and substantially common for decision, the Court is supposed to comply to the requirement as contemplated under Section 10, C.P.C. and decide the issue as such. Here, since the court below has not considered that legal aspect while deciding the issue, it appears that the order so passed on issue No. 1 is evasive and it should not be permitted to continue any more. It has to be interfered with.
6. As regards the issue relating to valuation of the suit as well as the Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit, the findings so recorded by the court below do not appear to be erroneous in any manner. In the subsequent suit before J.S.C.C., the opposite party No. 1 has been impleaded as sub-tenant of the main tenant, the opposite party No. 2 Dr. Rajeev Anand. Therefore, if a suit for eviction of the tenant has been filed, the sub-tenant of such main tenant is a necessary party and in that view of the matter the opposite parry No. 1 has been impleaded. Thus, it cannot be said that the suit of eviction of a stranger would lie before the regular court. The opposite party No. 1 is not a stranger but has been impleaded as sub-tenant and this suit is definitely cognizable by the J.S.C.C.
7. As regards the issue on valuation of the suit, nothing substantial has been argued from the side of the revisionist.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the findings recorded and order passed on issue No. 1 in the impugned order dated 27.5.2006 is hereby set aside and the revision is allowed to that extent. The court below is hereby directed to take up the issue No. 1 afresh and dispose it of in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above. The revision as it relates to the findings recorded on issue Nos. 2 and 3 is hereby dismissed. The court shall take up the case for decision on the aforesaid issue No. 1 expeditiously and pass suitable order after hearing the parties within a very short period.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Dr. Alok Kumar vs Sarabjeet Singh And Ors.

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
30 August, 2006
Judges
  • U Pandey