Rahim Khan and Others vs Masjid Managing Committee

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.—This group of CRPs arises out of an identical order passed in each of the I.As. in different suits filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitioners herein who are said to be the tenants of the plaintiff. The suits are filed for recovery of rents and for eviction. The petitioners herein filed applications u/s 151 CPC. seeking stay of the proceedings in the suits till the disposal of the writ petition (WP. No. 4376/90) pending in this Court. The petitioners submit that the decision in the said writ petition has a bearing on the issues arising in the suits. I am not concerned in these revisions with the question whether such an application is maintainable and whether there are legal grounds to stay the trial of the suits pending the said writ petition.

The I.As were disposed of by an identical order, by the learned XVII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, in the following terms:

"The suit is of the year 1990. The Hon''ble High Court of A.P. directed to dispose of the old matters expeditiously. The present suit is old one. Therefore instead of disposing of the matter expeditiously., I cannot stay the proceedings. Hence this petition is dismissed."

I do not think that the reason assigned by the learned Assistant Judge is a relevant reason. The administrative instructions given by the High Court are obviously general in nature and are not intended to fetter the judicial discretion of the Courts in dealing with interlocutory applications or the manner of disposal of suits. There is no blanket direction of the High Court that in all old suits, wherever the interlocutory applications are filed, the. same should be rejected outright. The circular can not be construed to mean that even in a fit case, the trial Court should refuse to exercise its discretion to hear I, As that may be filed in the suits and should mechanically reject the same merely on the basis of the circular. The Circular only emphasises the need to avoid unnecessary delays and to do everything possible to expeditiously dispose of the old matters within the frame work of law. If the Court feels that prima facie there is no merit in the I.A. and that it has been filed to procrastinate the proceedings, it is always open to it to dismiss the I.A. or to pass suitable orders in the course of trial of the suits. But the orders identical in all the I.As., which are impugned in the CRPs cannot be sustained in law. They are, therefore, set aside and the lower Court is directed to dispose of the applications on their own merits, expeditiously.

The C.R.Ps. are accordingly allowed. No costs.