1. This revision petition arises out of the order in I. A. No. 150 of 1971 in O. S. 10 of 1969 wherein the Subordinate Judges, Erode, has stayed the suit O. S. No. 10 of 1969, under Sec. 10, C. P. Code. The facts of the case are ; Prior to the filing of O. S. No. 10 of 1969 wherein I. A. No. 150 of 1971 has been filed the petitioner herein filed O. S. No. 222 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Erode. In that suit, the petitioner herein claimed damages from the respondent herein for the years 1960-61 to 1965-66. That suit was decreed for Rs. 12,320 against the respondent herein. The respondent herein preferred A. S. 838 of 1968 on the file of this Court and the same is pending. The main contention of the respondent herein in that appeal is that he is a tenant and as such there is no question of claiming any damages from him as a trespasser. But, on the other hand, the petitioner herein asserts, that the respondent is a trespasser and is liable to pay damages. Mr. Venkatavaradachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that if it is held that his client is a tenant different consequences will follow and as such the question as to whether his client is a tenant or a trespasser is the main issue in both the suits. O. S. 10 of 1969 and O. S. 222 of 1968 and the decision in both the suits depends upon the decision on the aforesaid main issue. Mr. Sengottiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, cited before me Bhola Prasad v. Srimathi Jagpala, : AIR1955All384 . That is a case in which rents were claimed for successive years after they have become due. In those circumstances it has been held that the subsequently instituted suit for rent cannot be stayed under Section 10, C. P. Code, in view of the fact that the previous suit in which a decree for rent has been passed is the subject-matter of appeal before the appellate Court. I do not think there is any difficulty in accepting that proposition. However, the said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case since in the present case the main question that has to be decided is as to whether the respondent herein is a tenant or a trespasser.
2. The next case cited by Mr. Sengotiah is Manoharlal v. Hiralal. : AIR1962SC527 . In that decision. Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and also Section 10. C. P. Code were discussed and the question as to whether the Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151. C. P. Code to grant the relief of injunction was also discussed. The Supreme Court held that the Court can grant injunction in appropriate cases, but when there is specific provision such as Section 10. C. P. Code available, the Court cannot invoke its inherent jurisdiction to stay a suit. Mr. Sengotiah is not able to show that this decision applies to the facts of the present case. I am of the opinion that this decision has absolutely no relevance to the facts of the present case.
3. The next decision cited by Mr. Sengottiah is Life Pharmaceuticals v. B. M. Hall, : AIR1971Cal345 . In that decision, the Calcutta High Court held :--
'In my opinion the test to be applied in deciding an application under Section 10 C. P. Code is whether the matter in the later suit is taken to have been decreed in the manner as prayed in the plaint. In such circumstances, it will matter little that no written statement has been filed in the earlier suit. If the above test is applied in the present case before me the position will be like this viz., that in the first suit before the Munsif's Court at Alipore if a decree will be deemed to be passed that will be possible only on the basis of the said agreement being a valid and enforceable one. Such will be the case also in respect of the second and third suits. As such it will be idle on the part of the plaintiff company to agitate this point regarding the invalidity of the said agreement by filing another suit later in point of time and by contending that this point regarding the invalidity of the agreement was not agitated in the said Alipore suits. If the plaintiff company fails to make the same a ground of defense in such former suits then the same will be hit by the principles of constructive res judicata in the present suit filed before this Court at a subsequent stage.
The principle underlying both Sections 10 and 11, C. P. Code is to achieve finality in litigation to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and also to prevent conflict of decisions in respect of the same subject-matter involved in two different suits filed by and between the same parties. These are the matters relating to the procedure to be followed in suits.'
It is clear from the above said decision that Section 10, C. P. Code can be easily applied to cases where the decisions of courts will definitely affect the decision in a suit instituted subsequently. As far as the present case is concerned the decision in A. S. 838 of 1968 will definitely affect the decision in O. S. 10 of 1969, inasmuch as the question that has to be mainly decided is as to whether the respondent herein is a tenant or a trespasser.
4. In the plaint filed by the petitioner he has definitely stated in paragraph 7 as follows-
'In view of the findings on issues 1, 2 and 3 in O. S. 222 of 1966 in the suit between the plaintiff and these defendants and the Supreme Court decision in : 2SCR20 and by the principles of res judicata defendants are bound in law by the finding they are not cultivating tenants either under Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act of 1956 or such other akin Acts.'
As far as the issued in O. S. 10 of 1969 are concerned, issues Nos. 3 and 4 are the same as Issues Nos. 8 and 9 in O. S. 222 of 1966. Issues No. 6 in O. S. 10 of 1969 is the same as issue No. 2 in O. S. 222 of 1966 and issues No. 11 in O. S. 10 of 1969 is the same as issue No. 4 in O. S. 222 of 1966. After elaborately considering all these points, the learned Subordinate Judge has observed:
'The question of jurisdiction and the status of first defendant as tenant are matters in dispute in both the suits. No doubt the quantum may vary in both the suits but the real controversy is the same in both the suits.'
There is absolutely no difficulty in accepting the said observation of the trial Court. The trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction in coming to such a conclusion, when especially the facts of the present case warrant only such a conclusion. The trial of the suit O. S. 10 of 1969, has been correctly stayed under Section 10, C. P. Code and I do not think that there is any ground for me to interfere with the same in this revision. In these circumstances the civil revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
5. It is better that A. S. 838 of 1968 is disposed of as expeditiously as possible in order to avoid further complications and delay in realizing the rent or damages from the respondent by the petitioner herein.
6. Petition dismissed.