- (1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of the learned civil Judge, Ratangarh dated 22. 9. 89 whereby the learned lower Court has rejected the application filed by the present petitioners under sec. 10 r/w sec. 151 C. P. C. for staying the proceedings in suit No. 31/88 Smt. Taramani Vs. Ramashwarlal etc. till suit bearing No. 32/88 filed by Shri Rameshwar Lal against Shri Tulshi Ram for declaration and injunctions is decided. The suit bearing No. 31/88 filed by Smt. Taramani against Shri Rameshwar Lal etc. has been filed u/s. 6 of the Specific Relief Act where as this suit which has been filed by Shri Rameshwarlal against Tulsi Ram and other is based on title for grant of declaration as also injunction against Shri Tulsi Ram, Sita Ram etc. . The contention of the petitioners in the learned lower court was that parties in both the suits are same, the subject matter in both the suits is also the same and consequently the proceedings in the suit filed u/s. 6 of the Specific Relief Act may be stayed till the decision of the title suit. THIS contention however did not find favour with the learned lower Court and it has rejected the application and consequently Shri Rameshwar Lal and Sushil Kumar who were the plaintiffs in the title suit, have filed this revision petition.
(2.) MR. Gour appearing for the petitioners advanced detailed arguments at the stage of admission and submitted that his contention before the learned lower Court was that parties in both the suits are same and the subject matter of the dispute is also same and if both the suits are allowed to continue then there is a possibility of contradictory decisions being rendered. If both suits are decided then the plaintiff petitioners will be driven to file another suit for possession and therefore, relief of injunction will become redundent and the finding about possession will become res judicata and; therefore, proceedings in Suit No. 31/88 should have been stayed by the learned lower Court. In this respect, MR. Gour draw my attention to a S. B. decision of this Court in Heeralal and another Vs. Hari Ballabh (l) where in it has been held that the decision on the point of possession in a suit u/s. 9 of the old Specific Relief Act, (the corresponding section of which is sec. 6 in the new specific Relief Act) operates as res judicata in the subsequent suit for possessions based oh title to find whether plaintiff came into possession within six months of the filing of the suit. MR. Gour also drew my attention to a decision by the learned Single Judge of the Rangoon High Court in Ma Kyaw and another Vs. Daw Kye U where in the learned Single Judge has held that where one party files a suit for recovery of possession and the opposite party files a counter suit in the same Court for declaration of title against the first party, the proper action for the Court is that, under the inherent powers of the Court, the hearing of the possessory suit should be stayed until the question of title to the land has been decided. Of course this authority helps the contention of MR. Gaur as the learned Single Judge of the Rangoon High Court has observed the such a suit for possession should be stayed under the inherent powers of the Court. It was further submitted by MR. Gour that the property is under attachment and is in the possession of that Commissioner and, therefore, the possession can be delivered to the person who is held to be best entitled its possession by the court and as no harm will be come to any party. I am afraid I cannot agree with this submission of Mr. Gour. A suit filed u/s. 6 of the Specific Relief Act has a very limited purpose. It protects possession. The object of the enactment itself is to protect possession and to provide a special summary speedy remedy for recovery of the possession. Any person who is dispossessed without his consent from an immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, not withstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. It is further provided in sub sec. 2 of sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act that no suit under this section shall be brought after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession. Sub Sec. 4 further provides that nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to" recover possession thereof. It is, therefore, clear that the remedy u/s. 6 is a summary speedy remedy for recovery of possession by a person who has been dispossessed without due process of law and that speedy efficacious remedy which is provided to him by law, cannot be denied on the ground that if the suit u/s. 6 is decreed and the possession will be handed over back to the person claiming it, the plaintiff will have to file a suit for possession, also. Simply because, a particular specific remedy is provided by law which is available to the suitor, may result in causing certain inconvenience to the other party, it cannot be held to be a good ground to debar him from availing that remedy. It is true that this Court has held that even in a suit based on title, in possession in claimed then that possession given to the plaintiff in a suit u/s. 6 of the Specific Relief Act within six months of the filing of the suit will operate as res judicata but that finding will be res judicata to that extent and no further. It neither one rates as resjudicata as regards title nor it affects the claim of possession prior to six months of dispossession claimed by the D. H. in a suit u/s. 6 of the specific Relief Act. What the law wants to protect is that nobody should be put out of possession without due process of law. Even if the suit of the person seeking possession is decreed then too, the person who has filed a suit for declaration and injunction based on title can claim relief for possession if he is dispossessed during the pendency of the suit but that cannot be made a good ground to debar a legal remedy which is available to him. It has been observed by the learned judical Commissioner of Goa in A. I. R. 1979 NDC 170 that stay cannot be granted to avoid multiplicity or suits by invoking inherent jurisdiction. Section 151 C. P. C. can be invoked when a certain question regarding procedure is not provided for by the Code when both the suits can be Heard by the Court at the time, then they should be heard and none should be stayed. Although in A. I. R. 1969 Manipur 49 (V 56 C 17) it has been observed that judgment in former suit u/s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, equivalent to Sec. 6 of the present Act, Will no act as res judicata in a subsequent title suit between them but this observation is subject to the decision of this Court rencered in Heeralal's case (supra ). It may be res judicata for the aforesaid limited purpose and not beyond that but sub sec. 4 of Sec. 6 itself provides that this is a special summary and speedy remedy which is granted to a person u/s. 6 and it will not debar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recovery possession thereof Any order passed u/sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act is always subject to the judgment given in a regular suit filed by a party based on title. It may be true that represently the possession may be with Receiver but that hardly matters. If a men is dispossessed without due process of law and if law gives him a remedy, he cannot be estopped from availing that remedy which is granted to him by law and, therefore, I entirely agree with the view taken by the learned Munsif that reliefs claimed in both the suits are different and based on different causes of action and, therefore, both the suits should be tried simultaneously and the proceedings in Suit No. 31/88 should not be stayed till the suit based on title bearing No. 32/88 is decided. In the result this revision petition has no force and it is hereby dismissed. . ;