Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, allowed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, setting aside the trial court’s order dated 26 February 2019, which had rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to stay proceedings in a later suit.
The Court held that the trial court had failed to provide reasons while rejecting the application and reiterated that an application under Section 10 CPC can be filed at any stage of the proceedings, including after commencement of evidence.
Justice Shetty observed:
“It is trite that an application under Section 10 of the CPC can be filed at any stage of the suit, and an appeal is a continuation of the suit. The trial court erred in dismissing the application merely because evidence had commenced.”
Accordingly, the Court remitted the matter to the trial court with directions to reconsider the application afresh on merits within two months.
Facts
The case arose out of a long-standing family property dispute. The petitioner was Defendant No.2 in O.S. No.8078/2016 before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-57).
Earlier, an ex parte decree had been passed in O.S. No.7795/2002, a suit for partition, separate possession, and mesne profits filed by a member of the same joint family. Against that decree, the petitioner had preferred RFA No.729/2008, which was pending before the High Court.
While the appeal was still pending, the legal representatives of the original plaintiff in O.S. No.7795/2002 instituted a new suit (O.S. No.8078/2016) seeking vacant possession of the very same properties that were already the subject matter of the earlier partition suit and appeal.
To prevent conflicting decrees, the petitioner filed I.A. No.4 under Section 10 of CPC, seeking a stay of further proceedings in O.S. No.8078/2016 until disposal of RFA No.729/2008. The trial court, however, rejected the application on the ground that the trial had already commenced, leading to the present writ petition before the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting an application under Section 10 CPC on the ground that evidence had commenced in the later suit?
- Whether the existence of an earlier pending appeal (arising out of the same subject matter and between the same parties) mandates a stay of the subsequent proceedings?
- Whether failure to provide reasons while rejecting a Section 10 application amounts to non-application of mind?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel argued that both O.S. No.7795/2002 and O.S. No.8078/2016 involved the same parties, subject matter, and property, and therefore, under Section 10 of CPC, the trial court was bound to stay the latter proceedings.
It was contended that RFA No.729/2008, arising from O.S. No.7795/2002, was still sub judice before the High Court, and proceeding with the later suit would result in conflicting judgments.
The counsel pointed out that in W.P. No.8129/2019, a coordinate bench of the High Court had already remanded a similar matter arising from the same suit (O.S. No.8078/2016) for fresh consideration of an impleadment application, and therefore, consistency required that the present petition also be allowed.
It was further argued that the trial court’s observation that the application under Section 10 could not be entertained after commencement of evidence was contrary to law, since an appeal is a continuation of a suit, and Section 10 can be invoked at any stage to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents’ counsel opposed the petition, submitting that the present case was factually distinct from W.P. No.8129/2019, which dealt with an impleadment application rather than a stay application.
He contended that the ingredients of Section 10 CPC were not satisfied because the causes of action in the two suits were not identical. While O.S. No.7795/2002 was for partition and mesne profits, O.S. No.8078/2016 was for possession, and hence, the issues involved were different.
It was further argued that since the evidence had already commenced, staying the proceedings would delay the trial unnecessarily. The respondents therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petition, contending that the trial court had rightly refused to grant a stay.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court examined Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibits a court from proceeding with a trial if the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same as that in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, pending before a competent court.
Justice Shetty clarified that the purpose of Section 10 is to avoid duplication of proceedings and prevent conflicting judgments. The Court emphasized that the pendency of an appeal arising from an earlier suit constitutes continuation of that suit for the purposes of Section 10.
The judge reiterated that the stage of trial has no bearing on the maintainability of a Section 10 application — what matters is whether the core subject matter and parties are identical or substantially similar.
The trial court’s reasoning that the application was belated merely because evidence had commenced was legally unsustainable, as Section 10 expressly permits the stay “at any stage” to maintain judicial consistency.
The Court also found fault with the absence of reasons in the trial court’s order, observing that a judicial order rejecting a stay application must disclose reasoning, especially where the application concerns prevention of multiplicity of proceedings.
Precedent Analysis
- National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, (2005) 2 SCC 256 — The Supreme Court held that the pendency of an appeal is a continuation of a suit, and the object of Section 10 CPC is to avoid conflicting decisions. Applied here to reinforce that RFA proceedings qualify as continuation of the original suit.
- Aspen Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Preeti Agarwal, (2008) 7 SCC 753 — The Court reiterated that the key criterion under Section 10 CPC is the identity of issues and parties, not the form of relief.
- Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna, (2004) 7 SCC 251 — Held that even partial identity of issues may justify stay under Section 10 CPC if adjudication in one case would directly affect the other.
These precedents guided the High Court in interpreting Section 10 as a preventive mechanism against parallel litigation involving the same parties and subject matter.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Shetty observed that the trial court had misdirected itself by dismissing the petitioner’s application on procedural grounds without examining whether the subject matter and parties in both suits were substantially identical.
The Court emphasized that since RFA No.729/2008 arising out of O.S. No.7795/2002 was pending before the High Court, and the properties involved in O.S. No.8078/2016 were the same, continuation of the latter proceedings would directly affect the outcome of the appeal.
Thus, the trial court’s refusal to stay proceedings was contrary to the spirit of Section 10 CPC, whose object is to avoid conflicting decrees.
The High Court concluded that the impugned order was devoid of reasoning and contrary to settled principles, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 26 February 2019, and remitted the matter to the trial court to reconsider I.A. No.4 afresh under Section 10 CPC on its merits.
Justice Shetty directed the trial court to decide the application within two months after providing both parties an opportunity of hearing. All other contentions on merits were expressly left open.
“The order impugned is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the trial court with a direction to consider I.A. No.4 afresh and pass orders on the merits of the application after hearing all the parties, as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months.”
Implications
This judgment reinforces several key principles under procedural law:
- Applications under Section 10 CPC can be filed at any stage of a suit or appeal.
- Identity of subject matter and parties is the primary test for applicability of Section 10.
- Courts must provide reasoned orders when rejecting stay applications to ensure transparency and judicial accountability.
- The decision prevents conflicting decrees and upholds judicial discipline across parallel proceedings.
The ruling provides much-needed clarity for litigants involved in overlapping civil suits, especially in cases of family property disputes and partition claims pending across multiple forums.
Judgments Referred
- National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, (2005) 2 SCC 256 — Appeal treated as continuation of suit under Section 10 CPC.
- Aspen Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Preeti Agarwal, (2008) 7 SCC 753 — Identity of parties and issues is the test for stay.
- Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna, (2004) 7 SCC 251 — Partial overlap of issues sufficient to invoke Section 10 CPC.
FAQs
Q1. Can an application under Section 10 CPC be filed after the trial has begun?
Yes. The Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that Section 10 CPC can be invoked at any stage of the proceedings, even after evidence has commenced, to prevent conflicting judgments.
Q2. Does the pendency of an appeal qualify as pendency of a suit under Section 10 CPC?
Yes. The Supreme Court has clarified that an appeal is a continuation of the suit, and thus, Section 10 applies even when an appeal from an earlier suit is pending.
Q3. What must a trial court consider while rejecting a Section 10 application?
The trial court must analyze whether the issues and parties are substantially identical and provide clear reasons for its conclusion. Absence of reasoning renders such orders invalid.