High CourtsSingle Bench(1963) 12 J&K CK 0003

Sardar Harnam Singh vs Mohan Lal

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 16 December 1963 · Citation: (1964) KashLJ 66

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.M.F.Ali, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 382 words

This is an application against an order of the District Judge Jammu refusing the prayer of the petitioner to stay a subsequent suit pending decision of

a previously instituted suit in his own court.

It appears that the respondent Mohan Lal filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale entered into between him and one Harnam

Singh the father of the petitioner. Sardar Balwant singh the son of the petitioner had brought a suit for injunction against him from alienating the

properties on the ground that the alienation was not justified by legal necessities and that the father was not competent to alienate the same. A

prayer was made by the petitioner for staying the subsequent suit pending decision of the suit filed by his son, The learned District Judge rejected

the prayer mainly on the ground that since Balwant Singh was not a party in the subsequent suit there could be no question of stay. Technically the

learned judge is right because section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in terms would not apply, but in cases where section 10 CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE. does apply in terms the court has ample powers under section 151 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. to pass orders staying

a suit. In the present cases, it is obvious that issues in the two suits are absolutely identical In fact, if the previous suit filed by Balwant Sing

succeeds, the subsequent suit filed by Mohan Lal will have to fail The policy of law is to avoid coming into existence two conferring decrees and

this principle is embodied in section 10 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. To cases where section 10 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. dose not apply

in terms the court has ample powers to pass orders ex debito justicaie under its inherent powers. In the present case, therefore, it seems to me that

this was a case where the subsequent suit filed by Mohan Lal should have been stayed by the court exercising its inherent powers.

I would, therefore, allow this application, set aside the order of ahe court below and direct that the suit filed by Mohan Lal against the petitioner

will be stayed pending decision of the suit filed by S. Balwant Singh.

In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.