1979 (2) TMI 211 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the trial court should have stayed Regular Civil Suit No. 167 of 1972 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Whether the suit should have been stayed under Section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958.
3. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant temporary injunction.
4. Whether the appellate court properly evaluated the evidence on record.
5. Whether the deletion of the condition related to the residential hut was justified.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Stay of Regular Civil Suit No. 167 of 1972 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The applicants contended that the matter in issue in Regular Civil Suit No. 167 of 1972 was directly and substantially the same as in the previously instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 105 of 1972. Both suits involved the same parties and the issue of tenancy. According to the applicants, the trial court should have stayed the latter suit under Section 10 of the Code, which mandates the stay of a suit if it is substantially the same as a previously instituted suit. The court noted that the applicants did not raise this contention in their written statements or during the hearing of the application for temporary injunction in the trial court or the appellate court. However, the court allowed the applicants to raise this legal question in the revision application. The court concluded that the word "trial" in Section 10 of the Code should be interpreted in a narrow sense, meaning the final hearing of the suit. The court held that the trial court was competent to entertain the application for temporary injunction and pass orders on it, even if the latter suit was governed by Section 10 of the Code.

2. Stay of the Suit under Section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958:
The applicants argued that the suit involved an issue regarding tenancy, which could only be determined by the competent authority under the Act, and therefore, the trial court should have stayed the suit under Section 125 of the Act. The court noted that Section 125(1) of the Act requires the civil court to stay the suit and refer the issue of tenancy to the competent authority. However, the court held that the stay of the suit under Section 125(1) does not prevent the civil court from making interim orders, such as granting temporary injunctions, as long as such orders do not involve the determination of the issue of tenancy. The court concluded that the trial court had jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctions even if the suit was to be stayed under Section 125 of the Act.

3. Jurisdiction to Grant Temporary Injunction:
The court emphasized that in granting a temporary injunction, the civil court is primarily concerned with determining who is in actual possession of the suit property at the time of the institution of the suit. The court held that the issue of tenancy is irrelevant for the purpose of granting a temporary injunction. The court concluded that the trial court had jurisdiction to grant the temporary injunction against the applicants, even though they contended that they were in occupation of the suit lands as tenants and the issue of tenancy had to be referred to the competent authority under the Act.

4. Evaluation of Evidence by the Appellate Court:
The applicants contended that the appellate court had not properly applied its mind to the evidence on record. The court noted that the trial court had considered the evidence and decided that non-applicant No. 1 was in possession of the suit lands. The appellate court had observed that the documentary evidence was in favor of non-applicant No. 1. The court held that it could not interfere with the finding of fact and the appreciation of evidence in revision. Therefore, the court found no substance in the contention that the appellate court's decision on facts was incorrect.

5. Deletion of Condition Related to the Residential Hut:
The applicants argued that the trial court should not have deleted the condition that non-applicant No. 1 would not oust applicant No. 1 from the residential hut in which she was residing. The court noted that non-applicant No. 1 had admitted that the applicants were residing in the cattle shed or hut in the suit lands. The court held that the trial court's deletion of the condition was not justified, as it would result in ousting the applicants from the hut, even though the suit was not for possession of the hut. The court concluded that the trial court was not right in deleting the condition, and the order passed by the courts below had to be modified to the effect that the temporary injunction would not apply to the cattle shed or residential hut in occupation of the applicants.

Conclusion:
The revision application was partly allowed. The order passed by the courts below regarding the temporary injunction was modified to exclude the cattle shed or residential hut in occupation of the applicants. There was no order as to costs.