Runu Pradhan And Another vs Shikshya Vikash Samiti, Khordha

K.R. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Order dated 16th March, 2024 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) (LR & LTV), Bhubaneswar in CS No.85 of 2018 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application filed by the Petitioners under Section 151 CPC to stay further proceeding of the suit till disposal of CS No.499 of 2016 pending before learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar.

Learned counsel submits that CS No.499 of 2016 has been filed by the Petitioners for specific performance of contract. During pendency of the suit, power connection to the premises was disconnected for which the Petitioners moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.7073 of 2017. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the writ petition, the Opposite Party (Plaintiff in the present suit) filed W.A. No.192 of 2017, which was dismissed on 6th February, 2023. When the matter stood thus, the Opposite Party suppressing material facts filed the present suit for eviction of the Petitioner as well as realization of arrear rent. The Opposite Party being the Plaintiff in the present suit is not cooperating with the Court for early disposal of CS No.499 of 2016. If the present suit is decided earlier to CS No.499 of 2016, the Petitioners will be highly prejudiced.

3.1 It is her submission that although remedy for stay of a suit is available under Section 10 CPC, but the Petitioners are not precluded from filing petition under Section 151 CPC for stay of the suit. Parties as well as property involved in both the suits are one and the same. Although ingredients of Section 10 CPC is not satisfied in the instant case, but for the interest of justice further proceeding of the present suit should be stayed till disposal of the earlier suit. Learned trial Court without appreciating the same passed the impugned order for which the present CMP has been filed.

Taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners and on perusal of record, it appears that although parties as well as property involved in both the suits are one and the same, but the earlier suit, i.e., CS No.499 of 2016 has been filed by the Petitioners for specific performance of contract and the present suit has been filed by the present Opposite Party for eviction of the present Petitioners as well as realization of arrear rent. So, consideration in both the suits are completely different. Thus, the Petitioners have rightly not filed any application under Section 10 CPC. If the Opposite Party is not cooperating for early disposal of the CS No.499 of 2016, Petitioners are at liberty to raise objection before learned trial Court. But that cannot be a consideration for stay of the present suit. Further, disposal of the present suit is not dependent upon disposal of CS No.499 of 2016.

Since the issues involved in both the suits are not directly and substantially the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-6.

Accordingly, the CMP being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

..…………………………….