N.N. Sharma, J.
1. This is a tenants revision directed against the order dated 1-2-1984 recorded by Sri D.C. Srivastava, learned II Addl. District Judge, Kanpur in SCC suit No. 97 of 1982 who rejected the application of revisionist paper No. 113-C, under Sections 10 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the suit till the disposal of the earlier suit No. 917 of 1981.
2. Suit No. 917 of 1981 was filed by the revisionist against the landlord--opposite parties for declaration and perpetual injunction restraining the opposite parties from ejecting the revisionist and declaring him to be the tenant of the disputed premises.
3. The defence in the earlier suit filed on regular side in the Court of Munsif City. Kanpur was that revisionist was a Thckedar and not tenant.
4. SCC Suit No. 97 was filed subsequently by the opposite parties in the Court of District Judge, Kanpur for ejectment and recovery of dues with the allegations that revisionist was a Thekedar and the Theka period had expired and so the revisionist is liable in ejectment It was further pleaded in the alternative that in case the revisionist was held to be tenant of the same he was a defaulter in payment of rent and so was liable to ejectment.
5. Both these suits were transferred to the teamed trial Judge for a simultaneous trial on the application of opposite parties Annexure CA1 to the counter-affidavit. The order of transfer is Annexure CA2 to the same affidavit and reads as below :--
'The application is allowed. Original suit No. 917 of 1981 is recalled from the Court of the VIII AddL Munsit and transferred to the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Kanpur for disposal according to law.
Sd/- District Judge
6. Learned trial Judge in the impugned order found that in the interest of justice simultaneous decision of both the suits was expedient. It would avoid any overlapping of findings also.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
8. On behalf of revisionist my attention was invited to Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides for stay of suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. There is no dispute on the point that both the parties in both the suits are same and the question of status of revisionist is directly and substantially in issue in both the suits. Thus it was pressed that simultaneous disposal of the suit was inexpedient The suit on S.C.C side shall be disposed of in a summary fashion while the suit on the regular side has to be disposed of after framing proper issues and after deduction of evidence at length.
9. In this connection reliance was placed upon Sheikh Mohammad Yasin v. Sheikh Md. Abdur Razzaque, reported in AIR 1954 Patna 10 which posited:--
'But in a matter which is not covered by Section 10 or by any other express provision of the Civil Procedure Code, it is competent for a Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to do that justice between the parties which is warranted under the circumstances and which the necessities of a particular case require. (1906) ILR 33 Cal 927 Ref. (para 4).
Held that the justice of the case required that the Small Cause Court suit in question should be stayed pending the disposal of the second appeal in the High Court under Section 151 Civil P. C. Case law referred.'
10. It appears that in that case Second Appeal No. 1545 of 1951 which was an offshoot of a small cause court suit brought by the landlord for recovery of house rent from the petitioner was pending when the subsequent suit was filed on small Cause Court side being suit No. 107/93 of 1951. There was a prayer for stay of this suit under Section 10 C.P.C till the disposal of the Second Appeal aforesaid. That prayer was allowed.
11. The next authority relied upon by learned Advocate for revisionist has been reported in Ram Narain v. Ram Swarup : AIR1962All108 where such prayer for stay was allowed
12. It appears that in that case applicant Ram Narain brought suit No. 69 of 1957 in the Court of Second Additional Civil Judge, Agraon the allegations that he was the owner of a truck which he transferred to defendants under a hire purchase agreement. The price was to be paid in 12 instalments of Rs. 1000/- each. Only 5 instalments were paid and so under the mutual agreement the truck was taken back by the plaintiff on 10-4-1957. He sought a declaration that he was the owner in rightful possession of the truck and for recovery of the unpaid instalments.
13. Defendants filed another suit No. 48 of 1958 in the same court with the allegations that they had purchased the truck from the applicant and were owners thereof. They sought relief for declaration that they were the owners of the truck and recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 17,250/-.
13. The prayer for stay under Section 10 C.P.C. was upheld by this Court although it was rejected by the trial Court.
14. Learned trial Judge as well as learned Advocate for the opposite parties relied upon P.P. Gupta v. East Asiatic Co. Bombay reported in : AIR1960All184 which posited :--
'Section 10 does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court trying the second suit, but merely lays down a rule of procedure. The words 'no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit' were intended to bar the separate trial of any suit in which the matter in issue was also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties in the same Court or in any other Court. But these words do not apply to the simultaneous hearing of a later and an earlier suit, after consolidation of the two, if the matter in issue in both is directly and substantially the same. Section 10 was not intended to take away the inherent power of the Court to consolidate in the interests of justice in appropriate cases different suits between the same parties in which the matter in issue is substantially the same. Case law discussed.'
15. In that case the applicant P.P. Gupta entered into a contract with opposite party Company for the purchase of a Printing Press which was offered by the Company for Rs. 19,000/- F. O. R. Agra. The Press was delivered to the applicant at Agra.
16. On 26-4-1955 applicant Sri P.P. Gupta filed a first suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Agra accusing the Company of breach of contract and prayed for recovery of Rs. 699177 Annas.
17. Subsequently on 5th October, 1956 Company filed a second suit in the same Court for the recovery of the balance of the sale price together with interest. There was a prayer by the Company for the Consolidation of both the suits. The applicant Sri Gupta prayed for the stay of the subsequent suit till the disposal of his suit
18. It was found that the matter in issue was common in both the suits but the consolidation of both the suits was expedient in the interest of justice and Section 10 C.P.C., was not held a bar to the disposal of subsequent suit.
19. I have carefully considered all these authorities which were based on facts anterior to the coming in operation of Order 4-A relating to consolidation of suits by U. P. Act No. 57 of 1976 which reads as below :
Consolidation of suits and proceedings :-- 'When two or more suits or proceedings are pending in the same Court, and the Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice, it may by order direct their joint trial whereupon all such suits and proceedings may be decided upon the evidence in all or any such suits or proceedings.'
20. Thus this rule expressly empowers the trial Court to consolidate the suits if he finds it expedient in the interest of justice to direct a joint trial and all such proceedings can be decided upon the evidence recorded in all or any such proceedings.
21. Learned counsel for the revisionist pointed out that a separate order to this effect by learned trial Judge was essential I do not subscribe to this view. It appears from a perusal of Annexure CA 1 aforesaid that there was a prayer for transfer with the request that both the suits be disposed of together. Learned trial Judge himself observed that he thought it expedient to conveniently dispose of both the suits simultaneously without any overlapping of findings. It is not possible to hold that in the light of aforesaid order and the powers conferred under Order 4-A inserted by U. P. Act No. 57 of 1976 it was improper or prejudicial in any manner to the revisionist so as to justify the recording of a distinct and separate order again.
22. Under the circumstances. I do not find any merit in this revision which is dismissed Stay order dated 1-3-1984 is hereby vacated