IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1210 of 2006 (M/S) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. … Petitioner Versus M/s Durga Prasad Jeewan Prasad … Respondent Mr. J.C. Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Pandey, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent No. 7. With Writ Petition No. 1403 of 2005 (M/S) Alok Sah & others … Petitioners Versus District Judge & others … Respondents Mr. B.D. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. Mr. J.C. Belwal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. J.C. Belwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner/Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. B.D. Pandey, Advocate for the private respondent. 2. On the basis of a lease executed between the parties, M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘BPCL’) was running a petrol pump on the land of the opposite party. The term of the lease deed expired and, accordingly, the owner of the land filed a suit for ejectment against BPCL. BPCL also filed a suit praying that under the terms and conditions of the lease deed, BPCL was entitled for the renewal of the lease deed for a further period of 30 years, extendable from the year 1992. In the suit of ejectment, filed by the owners, BPCL moved an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of 2 the suit till the suit of specific relief performance was not decided by the court. This application was rejected against which the present writ petition (No. 1210 of 2006) has been filed by BPCL. 3. The court below rejected the application on the ground that the relief claimed in both the suits are different and distinct, namely, that one was a suit for specific performance and another was a suit for ejectment and, therefore, the suit of ejectment cannot be stayed till the disposal of the suit for specific performance. 4. The owner, being aggrieved by an order dated 9th November, 2005, has also preferred a writ petition. It transpires that the suit of specific performance was dismissed, as abated. After a lapse of 2½ years, an application under 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. was filed, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, a restoration application was filed, which was allowed against which the present writ petition No. 1403 of 2005 has been filed by the owner. 5. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter and 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. 6. In the light of the aforesaid provision, the Court finds that in both the suits, the genesis is the lease agreement executed between the parties. The essential 3 issue which is directly and substantially an issue is whether the lease is liable to be renewed for a further period of 30 years, if not, the lessee is liable to be evicted or not? Consequently, both the suits should be tried together instead of one of the suits being stayed till the disposal of the suit of specific performance. The court below committed an error in holding that since, the relief claimed are different, the suit cannot be stayed. What is essential is whether the issue in question is directly and substantially, an issue between the parties. 7. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 12th June, 2006, cannot be sustained and is quashed. The Court is, however, of the opinion that the application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. filed by BPCL cannot be allowed. The said application is, accordingly, quashed, since, the Court is of the opinion that both the suits should be consolidated and tried together. The writ petition No. 1210 of 2006 is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. 8. In so far as the writ petition of the owner is concerned, the Court does not find any error in the impugned order dated 9th November, 2005, restoring the misc. application No. 1 of 1999. The writ petition No. 1403 of 2005, filed by the owners to that extent is dismissed. 9. In the light of the aforesaid, the court below is directed to decide the application of BPCL for setting aside the abatement application. In the event, the court below allows the application, this Court directs the court below to consolidate both the suits and decide the same on the day- 4 to-day basis from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 27.12.2011 Aswal