IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C| N0. 6 ^^S / PETITIONERS/ DEFENDANTS ^ .<;r*,-y\/>;'" ^' \y'Bi-y,' .-••" ^y^^--' ^^^ ^' />f ' 1. Smt. Gigibai, aged about 72 years W/o. Late Motilal Agrawal (Widow) ^2. Pawan Kumar, aged about 41 years / 3. Gopal Agrawal, aged about 40 years 4. Ajay Kumar Agrawal, aged about 38 years No. (1) being widow and Nos. (2) to (4) being sons of Late Motilal Agrawal. AI1 residents of Gudiyari, Raipur (C.G.) / 5. Smt. Vimladevi, aged about 53 years, W/o Shri Harbux Agrawal, R/o Kharsiya, District Raigarh. ^ 6. Smt. Saroj Agrawal, aged about 38 years, W/o. Shri Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, R/o. Bazar Chowk, Amgaon, District Bhandara (Mah.) 7. Smt. Satosh Agrawal, aged about 43 years, W/o Shri Basant Agrawal, C/o. Kundanmal Tikaram, Murri Road, Bajpai Ward, Gondiya, Dist. Bhandara. 8. Manju Agrawal, aged about 31 years, D/o. Late Shri Motilal Agrawal, R/o. Ganj Para, Raipur (C.G.) (At the time of institution of the Civil Suit was a minor of 13 years and was represented through motherj. RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIFFS VERSUS 1. Motilal Goel, S/o Shri Raj Narayanji, aged about 61 Years. Atul Kumar Goel, aged about 44 years, S/o. Niranjanlal Goel. Rajiv Kumar Goel, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri Ram Krishna Goel. Kanhaiyalal Goel, aged about 45 years, S/o. Shri Om Prakash Goel. AII residents of Fafadih, Raipur, Tehsil 8s District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA /' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT_BII,ASPUR W.P. No. 6586/2006 PETITIONER : SmtGigibai and seven others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : MotilalGoel andthree others. ORDER BE POSTED FOR /) -1-2007 Sd/- Dhirednra Mishra Judge '» ^ •^j u/ i~ ^^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 6S86/2006 PETITIONER : Smt. Gigibai and seven others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Motilal Goel and three others. Shri Ravish Agrawal tearned Sr. Advocate witti Shri Sumesh Bajaj for the petitioners. Dhirendra Mishra.J ORDER (f 1-01-2007) The petitioners have impugned the order dated 15.2.2000 passed by the First Civil Judge Class II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 7-A/1999 as the application preferred under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the proceedings of the suit till the decision of First Appeal No. 246/1995 pending in the High Court has been rejected. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that Civil Suit No. 23-A/1985 for specific performance ofthe contract was instituted by the petitioners in ths Court of District Judge, Raipur. Case of the petitioners in the above suit was that they had entered into an agreement for sale of the disputed house prior to execution of the sale deed in favour of respondents 1 to 4 and the sale deed in favour of respondents 1 to 4 has been executed with an object to frustrate the contract with the plaintiffs. The above suit was dismissed vfcle judgment dated 16.2.1995 against which the petitioners preferred First Appeal No. 246/1995 which is pending in this High court. During the pendency of the civil suit the respondents instituted a suit for ;s lisil^ • ^ "^ --^'wssSssa'sSBK..: ..'. • .^? -4- ^ eviction against Motilal Agrawal with partnership firm. The suit was filed with the averment that they are the owners of the suit house which they purchased through registered sale deed executed by one Shiv Narayan. The suit was filed on the grounds enumerated under section 12 (1)(a), 12 (1)(c) and 12(1) (e) ofthe M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was flled by the petitioners on the ground that parties and issues in the former suit for specific performance are common and therefore, the proceedings in the present suit may be stayed tilt the decision of First Appeal No. 246/1995. The above application was rejected vide order dated 15.2.2000 vide annexure (P-9). Civil Revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the subsequent amendment in the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter in issue in the present suit is directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit and therefore, the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are squarely attracted to the facts of the case. However, the Court below even after holding that if both the suits are independently decided then the possibility of different conclusions cannot be ruled out, has rejected the application with an observation that the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court shall be filed by the petitioners and only thereafter issue No.1 which relates to res judicata can be considered. Leamed counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Sheikh Munna Vs. Kaushal TS ^^s ^'^ -^- t- son and the respondents on the other side. In the matter of Sheikh Munna Vs. Kaushal Kishor®Verma (supra), the apptication under Section 10 of the Code ofCivi! Procedure was allowedas two material issues psrtaining to title of the non applicant and title of the petitioner which he claimed under the agreement of purehase were identical to the former suitwhich was ths suit for specific performance ofthe contract and considering this aspect the proceedings in the subsequent suit were stayed. However, in the present case from perusal of the issues framed by the triai Court on the basis of pleadings of the respective parties it is observed that the question involved for adjudication of the present suit whether there is relationship of tandlord and the tenant between the parties and whether the defendants have disclaimed the wvnership of the piaintiffs, whether the plaintiffs require ths suit accommodation bonafideiy for the purpose of their own business or whether the plaintiffe are entitled for arrears of rent and damages as claimed ete. In the matter of P.V. Shetty Vs. B.S. Giridhar (supra) the question invoived in the above case was that the eviction suit was. filed by the landlord prior to the institution of ths suit. The tenant had filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority for fixation of fair rent and in the aforesaid circumstances the tenant filed an application for interim stay of the further proceedings of the suit tit! th® disposal of the appiication for fixation of fair rent. The Supreme Court considered that fixation of fair rent will have the impact on the outcoms of the suit stayed the procesdings in the eviction suit till the fixation of the fair rent. However, in the instant case no such contingency existe and ^g^. '€..-' '"^^ ^-.- sGuipsaoojd uoipiAe 34} }ei|) pjsq uesq seq )! UIS.ISIJM 53^ OQS j,(. (SOOZ? u! paiJodej susqto pue |epue|/y UBABJBN aaaQ 's/\ IASQ eqpBy ^o jeueiu sij} ui pnoo SLUsjdn9 34} p }ustu6pnf sq) Aq MSIA 5)1 ui psyipoj si }jnoo siiji -pv 104UOQ uosepotuiuooov 'd'IAI 94t u! ps}Bj3Lunus spunojB Sqi UO UOR31A9 JO^ 8SB3 B in0 85fBLU 0} S|qB ajG syguieid sq} jeqisqM pue s^uiBjd/siuepuodssj pue siUBpus.tep/sjsuoiissd s^ useMtsq ps^sixs )UBUS} pue pjo|pue| y> ditisuoffBiej eq) JS^SIJM sj |BU} sq} u] qsitqeise 0} psjinbsj SJG s.U!}uie|d sifl »eqM}jns tusssjd p ssodjnd SL)} JQJ tey} uoiuidp psjepisuoo aij} y> si ynoo SJLJ} uoiiisod |eBe| SAoqe 34} ^o MeiA u| •^ •pe}Bj;snJj pueis p|nom py sqi p ssodjnd eij) 'esiAue^o '8|}B ^o uoi^ssnb snouss O}ui oB 0} pejinbej }ou si vnoo 34} sBuipseoojd sAoqe eqi u] 'iqBnos si UOIIOIAS SL|} qaiqM uo spunojS sif} pue »UBUS} sq} 4}jM AOUBUS} p pefluoo si|} SAOjd o} psjinbsj si pjo|pue| py joJiuoo uoBBpouiiuooov 'd'M 84) -ispun •siuspuodsej eq) 0} pjos sem uoj(BpoujLuoooe 94} 'JSASAAOI-I •painoexs eq o} SBA pssp S|BS sq^ jsyee-isij^ pue pefluoo SLJI jo step 04} LUOJ.( sjeeA o/tfq uii)}! pred aq p|noM uoj^Ejepisuoo jo souB|Eq }eqt uor(B|ndRS e 4}iM aiues 94} p lUsiueBpei/iAou^OB ui idisasj e psssed pue Aeuoui }seujee peAisosj pue SJBS w^ }OBJ}UOO oy.is pej8}ue suojieBsiie ^uieid eij} 0} Suipjoooe OI|M 6S~8S6l souis js||8s si)} ^o S)ueus} sq) SJOM sj©uo.4jt9d SL|} }eqi ssji.dsuejt ti 'sBpnp PU}SJQ si|} jo tusiuSpnf sy; ui LKIM t|eap useq SBLJ qoii|M iins JSLUJO^ sqi ui jsuoiigsd sq} p sBuipesid sq} LUOJ^ •9 'esBO }uassjd ei|( ui uoffeoiidde ou eAeq sjeuoiusd eij) Aq p9)io stueiuBpnf 04} 'ejopjsq} -6 initiated during the pendency of the title suit filed in respect of the same premises and between the same parties cannot be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure since the Rent Court is not required to decide the question of title and the Court can proceed with the trial of eyiction suit even if it was fited during the pendency of the title suit involving the same parties as weli as the subject matter. 8. Though the reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the appiication for stay are not in order, neverttieless, considering the law taid down by the Supreme Court in the abovementioned judgment, 1 am of the opinion that exercise of the jurisdiction by the trial Court in passing the impugned order shall not occasion failure of justice or grave injustice to the petitioner. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion this Court is of the view that the instant petition has no substance and therefore, the same is iiabie to be dismissed. tt is accordingly dismissed. __. Sd/- Dhirednra Mishra Judge