ARATI DUTTA AND ANR. Vs. EASTERN TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has come up for final disposal at the instance of the learned Counsel for the parties. All materials necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal have been furnished to us by them. We have heard the learned Counsel and perused the records.

(2.) THE appeal is presented against an ex -parte decree. It has been candidly admitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the impugned order of ex -parte decree is not the speaking order. No cogent reason has also been ascribed as to why the prayer made in the petition dated 7.1.82 to stay the suit has been turned down by the learned judge.

(3.) BUT as already noted the earlier order was not on merit. Further, the learned Judge has not given any reason whatsoever as to why the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure invoked by the Appellants were not exercised. The Court suo moto can stay suit if it finds that the ingredients of Section 10 are present in a given case. It is a restriction imposed upon the Court to try subsequent suit. It touches the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and dispose of a suit. Even otherwise a valid decree may get invalidated if the Courts proceed with the trial of the suits which it could not try by virtue of Section 10 of "the Code". Therefore, an application under Section 10 of the Code which questions its jurisdiction is a serious business.