CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

K.S. Arumugha Gounder vs Pavayammal and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 8 July 1996 · Citation: (1997) 1 CTC 98

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shivaraj Patil, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 39 Rule 1, 10
CASE NUMBER
C.R.P. No. 3358 of 1995
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 356 words

Shivaraj Patil, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondents have remained unrepresented, though served. None appeared,

when called, for the respondents.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner (plaintiff in O.S.No. 287 of 1995) urged that the impugned order passed by the Court below on I.A.No.

2117 of 1995 in O.S.No. 287 of 1995 is patently illegal and unsustainable. He submitted that an application u/s 10 C.P.C. was filed by the

respondents seeking for stay of the suit having regard to the pendency of the suit in O.S.No. 273 of 1981. The petitioner made an application

under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. in his suit O.S.No. 287 of 1995 in the Court below. When that application came up for consideration,

I.A.No. 2117 of 1995 was filed by the respondents u/s 10, C.P.C. The trial Court should have stayed the trial of the suit at the most and was not

justified in staying all further proceedings including the consideration of the application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.

3.

I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled position in law that the say of suit contemplated u/s 10, C.P.C. is

stay of trial of the suit. In such an application, there cannot be stay of consideration of the application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.

If such a situation is allowed, the very consideration of urgent applications like the one mentioned above could be stalled. Under the circumstances,

in my view, the impugned order as it is cannot be upheld. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties in both the suits, subject matter of the suits

and the nature of the relief sought for, the stay of trial of the suit is justified. In this view, I pass the following order: Civil Revision Petition is partly

allowed and the impugned order is modified so as to stay the trial of the suit. I make it clear that the application filed by the petitioner under Order

39 , Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for consideration should be taken up for consideration.