- (1.) THIS is an application by Hira Lal plaintiff to revise the order of the Civil judge, Alwar staying the suit under sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff is a assignee of a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent and arrears subsequent to the decree from one Ram Kumar who is the defendant pro forma in the present case. The decree in the ejectment and arrears of rent suit was given by the High Court of Alwar in favour of Ram Kumar against Kanhya-lal defendant No. 1. It is this decree which was assigned to the plaintiff. On the strength of that decree the plaintiff has obtained the possession of the property from Kanhyalal. THIS suit has now been filed for the recovery of arrears of rent acruing after the date of previous suit. Before the suit was filed, Kanhyalal filed another suit in the Court of the District Judge, Alwar for a declaration that Fateh Lal was an adopted son of Mst. Dhanni and was consequently entitled to the shop in suit. Fateh Lal has mortgaged the shop in favour of Kanhyalal and consequently the latter has also prayed for a declaration that he is a valid mortgagee of the shop in question.
(2.) AN application was made in the lower court by the defendant Kanhyalal that the suit be stayed pending the decision of his suit in the District Judge's Court. The learned Civil Judge found that the suit could not be stayed under sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but he found it proper to stay the suit by virtue of sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this revision, the learned counsel for the plaintiff applicant has argued that the suit could be stayed only if sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied to the case and that the lower court acted illegally in staying it under sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which could not be invoked in the circumstances of the case. He relied upon a ruling of Lahore High Court reported in Lakshmi Insurance Co. Ltd. , Lahore vs. B. K. Kaula and another (A. I. R. 1940 Lahore Page 85 ). In this case, it was held by a Single Judge that - "sec. 10, Civil P. C. being not applicable, Sec. 151, Civil P. C. could not be invoked to stay the suit which could not be legally stayed. " In reply to this ruling learned counsel for the opposite party has cited another ruling of the same High Court reported in Dwarka Dass vs. Governor General of India in Council and others (A. I. R 1947 Lahore Page 28. In this case, another single Judge Achhru Ram, J. held that - "in a case not covered by sec. 10, the order for stay of subsequently instituted suit may be made under sec. 151 Civil, P. C. if the courts consider it necessary to make such an order in the interests of justice in order to avoid unnecessary harassment to any of the parties. " With respects to the learned Judge, who decided the case reported in A. I. R. 1940 Lahore Page 85, I prefer to follow the view taken by Achhru Ram, J. in the later Labor case. Under sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court under its inherent powers makes such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Under N. 2 sub. N. 7, Chitaley in his commentary in the Civil Procedure Code, says that a court has in-herent powers to stay the suit pending the decision in a connected proceeding, apart from sec. 10 of the Code. An Appellate or Revision Court has similarly inherent powers to stay further proceedings in the suit in the lower court apart from O. 41 R. 5 of the Code. It cannot therefore, be said that in such a case, the court is not entitled in its inherent powers to stay a suit even though, sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not be applicable. The learned Civil Judge has given good reasons that it would be a harassment to the parties if the present case is allowed to proceed pending the decision of Kanhyalal's suit in District Judge's court. I do not find that in making the order which the learned Civil Judge has passed, he has either usurped any jurisdiction which was not vested in him or has acted illegaly or with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. I do not find any force in the application for revision and it is dismissed. I however, make no order as to costs of this revision under the circumstances of the case. .;