Arun Madan, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 7.8.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge. No. 2. Alwar in Civil Suit No. 4/96 whereby, the.application of the petitioners-defendants moved under Section 10 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. for stay of the proceedings was rejected.
(2.) During the course of hearing, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the deed was executed between the petitioners and the non-petitioners on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- as regards the shop in question. Thereafter. the petitioners started the business of Photography in the said shop. Since the respondents-landlord were not in immediate need to occupy the shop in question, the petitioners- tenants advanced a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondents for carrying out necessary repairs and construction. Consequently, the rent was revised to Rs. 400/- per month on the landlord to which the petitioner did not object and hence the agreed rent was Rs. 400/- per month. Lateron, some disputes arose between the parties and the respondents declined to adjust the amount of Rs. 30,000/- against the rent hence. the petitioners-defendants filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 117/92 against the respondents-plaintiffs for protection of their possession against forcible ejectment. Thereafter. the second suit bearing Civil Suit no. 4/96 was filed by the respondents- plaintiffs against the petitioners who were arrayed as defendants in the said suit. The respondents sought eviction of the petitioners on the ground of default in payment of rent under the provisions of Section 13(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 for short "the Act of 1950". The said suit is still pending at the stage of framing of issues and evidence is yet to be led by the parties on the question of default while in the first suit the issues have been framed by the trial Court and it is at the stage of recording evidence of the parties. During the pendency of Civil Suit No. 4/96. the petitioners-defendants filed an application for stay of proceedings in the said suit by invoking the provisions of Section, 10 Civil Procedure Code. on the ground that the matter was death and substantialy in issue in the second suit which was also in issue in the earlier suit and, therefore, the trial Court should stay the proceedings in the said subsequent suit.
(3.) Prima facie, I am of the that before the provisions of Section 10 Civil Procedure Code. are attracted to a suit where parallel proceedings are pending between the parties by way of different suits before a court between the same parties the plaintiff has to make out a case for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court by specifically stating that subject matter at issue in both the suits is directly and substantially the same and also between the same parties who are litigating under the same title. It is further enjoined upon the trial Court that before the Court stays the proceedings in both the suits, it should come to a conclusion that decision in the former suits will operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit even though, the relief prayed for in the former suit and subsequent suit may differ. The dominant object of Section 10 Civil Procedure Code. is that no person should be vexed twice with regard to the same matter in issue and there should not be conflicting judgments in two parallel suits in respect of the same matter at issue and also to avoid multiplicity of litigation with a view to ensure speedy justice.;