9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. against an order staying a suit under Section 7, Encumbered Estates Act; Suit for possession, mesne profits, and debt; Interpretation of Section 7(1)(a), Encumbered Estates Act; Application of Order 2, Rule 6, Civil P.C. for separate trials in a composite suit. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application in revision challenging an order staying a suit under Section 7, Encumbered Estates Act. The suit involved claims for possession, mesne profits, and a debt. The lower Court had stayed the proceedings based on the defendants' application under Section 6 of the Encumbered Estates Act. The plaintiff contended that the suit included reliefs beyond debt recovery, necessitating a re-consideration of the stay order. The Court analyzed the nature of the reliefs sought in the suit, distinguishing between claims for possession, mesne profits, and a debt of &8377; 2500 for the year 1332 Fasli. The Court interpreted Section 7(1)(a) of the Encumbered Estates Act, which mandates the stay of proceedings related to debts of a landlord. It determined that the claim for possession was not a debt, while mesne profits constituted unliquidated damages, falling outside the Act's definition of debt. However, the debt claim of &8377; 2500 was deemed to be covered under the Act. The Court cited a previous decision to support its interpretation of mesne profits as unliquidated damages, aligning with the Code of Civil Procedure's definition. Regarding the composite nature of the suit with distinct reliefs, the Court invoked Order 2, Rule 6, Civil P.C., allowing for separate trials when causes of action cannot be conveniently tried together. The Court emphasized the importance of not unduly delaying the suit for possession and mesne profits due to the potentially lengthy proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act. Consequently, the Court directed a separate trial for the debt claim while allowing the suit to proceed for possession and mesne profits, overturning the lower Court's decision to stay the entire suit. In conclusion, the Court found that the lower Court had erred in staying the entire suit and failing to exercise its jurisdiction to order separate trials for distinct causes of action. The revision application was allowed, costs were awarded, and the lower Court was instructed to proceed in accordance with the law, allowing the suit to continue for possession and mesne profits while staying the proceedings related to the debt claim.
|
