[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kirti Dal Mills Ltd., Thr Its Director ... vs Rajesh Lunkad on 18 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:35919
WP**-10521-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10521 OF 2025
Kirti Dal Mills Limited,
Through its Director,
Mr. Anand Bhutada,
Age: 43 years, Occupation: Business,
having its registered office at 79-C,
Market Yard, Latur - 413 512 ... PETITIONER
(Original Plaintiff)
VERSUS
Rajesh Lunkad,
Proprietor of Lunkad Veg Oils,
having address at 247/248, Market Yard,
Gultekdi, Pune - 411 037 ... RESPONDENT
(Original Defendant)
....
Mr. Rahul R. Totala, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Amit Ashok Yadkikar, Advocate for the Respondent
....
CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
RESERVED ON : December 08, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : December 18, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of both the parties.
1 of 23
(( 2 )) WP**-10521-2025
2. By the present petition, the petitioner takes exception to
the order dated 06.05.2025 passed below Exh.15 in Commercial Suit
No. 1 of 2024, whereby the suit came to be stayed under Section 10
of the Code of Civil Procedure till the disposal of the previously
instituted suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2021, pending on
the file of the learned District Judge, Pune.
3. The present Respondent is the plaintiff and Petitioner is
defendant in previous Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2021, whereas the
present petitioner is the plaintiff and Respondent is defendant in
subsequent Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2024.
4. The factual matrix of the matter is that, on 25.06.2021,
the respondent herein instituted Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2021
before the learned Additional Sessions & District Judge, Pune and
prayed as under:
a) The Defendant be restrained by an order of ad-interim
injunction from passing off its goods/services as that of the
Plaintiff's or using any mark similar/identical to the Plaintiff's
marks and CHAMPION, by itself and/or with any prefix/suffix
whatsoever in respect of soyabean oil or any other type of
edible oils, in the course of business or otherwise, either
personally or through its agents, servants, employees, staff,
otherwise, either personally or through actions which amounts
to unfair assigns or representatives, or any other actions which
2 of 23
(( 3 )) WP**-10521-2025
amounts to unfair competition and loss of reputation of the
Plaintiff, pending the disposal of the present suit;
b) The defendant be restrained by an order of ad-interim
injunction from infringing upon the Plaintiff's copyright, by the
use of a deceptively similar trade dress as that of the Plaintiff in
the course of business or otherwise, either personally or
through its agents, servants, employees, staff, assigns or
representatives, pending the disposal of the present suit;
c) The Defendant be restrained by a decree of permanent
injunction from passing off its goods/services as that of the
Plaintiff or using any mark similar/identical to the Plaintiff's
marks by itself and/or with any prefix/affix whatsoever in
respect of soyabean oil or any other type of edible oils, in the
course of business or otherwise, either personally or through its
agents, servants, employees, staff, assigns or representatives or
any other actions which amounts to unfair competition and loss
of reputation of the Plaintiff;
d) The Defendant be restrained by an order of permanent
injunction from infringing upon the Plaintiff's copyright, by the
use of a deceptively similar trade dress as that of the Plaintiff
used for or in respect of Soyabean Oils and/or any other type of
edible oils in the course of business or otherwise, either
personally or through its agents, servants, employees, staff,
assigns or representatives;
e) The Defendant be directed and ordered to give a stock of
the reports/analysis including marketing material and the like
bearing the marks CHAMPION used with any prefix/suffix used
in respect of Soyabean Oil/any other edible oils that are in
possession of the Defendant and surrender the same for
destruction in the presence of the Plaintiff as on a date decided
by this Hon'ble Court;
f) The Defendant be directed and ordered to pay
Rs.50,00,000/- (rupees fifty lakhs) towards damages to the
3 of 23
(( 4 )) WP**-10521-2025
Plaintiff for the loss of business and loss of profits sustained by
the Plaintiff;
g) The Defendant be directed and ordered to give rendition of
accounts to calculate the profits earned by using the impugned
mark 'CHAMPION' and 'Champion' (in the alternative to (f)
above;)
h) The cost of the suit throughout may kindly be awarded to
the Plaintiff from the Defendant; and
i) Any other just and equitable orders in the interest of justice
may kindly be passed.
5. The present petitioner/defendant appeared in Special
Civil Suit No. 24 of 2021 and filed Exh. 17, an application for return
of the plaint on the ground that, by Notification dated 27 th August
2019, the State Government, in exercise of powers under the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and as per the Commercial Court
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 designated Commercial Court is
empowers to decide the commercial disputes having pecuniary value
of Rs.50,00,000/-. As per said notification, the Court of Civil Judge,
Senior Division, at the District Headquarters is designated as the
Commercial Court for adjudication of commercial disputes up to
Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore), and the District Judge-2 is
designated for disputes above 1 crore. However, as per the pleadings
raised by the Respondent/plaintiff coupled with notification, no other
4 of 23
(( 5 )) WP**-10521-2025
courts except the court of Senior most Civil Judge, Senior Division or
the Court of District Judge-2 having jurisdiction to entertain, try and
decide the commercial dispute of specified value. Therefore, the
learned District Judge, Pune having no jurisdiction to entertain and
try the said suit.
6. The Respondent/plaintiff filed a reply at Exh.18,
contending that at the allotment of the matter and due to
administrative exigencies, the office of the District Court listed said
special suit before the learned District Judge, Pune. As per the said
notification, said suit was to be listed before the Commercial Court
but it is allotted to the learned District Judge, Pune.
7. It is further canvassed that, Section 134 of the Trade
Marks Act read with Section 62 of the Copyright Act, suit for
infringement cannot be tried by a court inferior to the District Court
Judge. Therefore jurisdiction of the Civil Judge Senior Division is
expressly barred by the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and
the Copyright Act,1957.
5 of 23
(( 6 )) WP**-10521-2025
8. On 28.01.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Pune passed an order below Exh.17 in Special Civil Suit No.24 of
2021 and rejected the application of return of plaint on ground that
though the definition of the Commercial Courts Act defined under
Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act and notification
issued by the State Government, however, Section 134 of the Trade
Marks Act, suit for infringement of trade mark is to be instituted
before the District Court and the dispute about Trademark, Copy
Right is the commercial dispute. However, there is bar in respect of
subject matter under the Trade Marks Act, which is having override
effect to any other law including Code of Civil Procedure. The
legislature expected that the Courts should read and interpret the
provisions of Trade Marks Act and Commercial Court Act in
harmoniously.
9. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 28.01.2024, the
present petitioner/defendant in previous suit, filed Civil Revision
Application No. 146 of 2025 (Kirti Dal Mills Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Lunkad)
before the Principal Seat at Bombay. On 19.03.2025, His Lordship N.
J. Jamadar, J, passed the following order:-
6 of 23
(( 7 )) WP**-10521-2025
"1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant.
2. An arguable question is raised.
3. Issue notice to the Respondent for final disposal,
returnable on 23 April 2025.
4. In addition to notice through Court, the Petitioner is at
liberty to serve the Respondent by private service and file
affidavit of service.
5. In the meanwhile, the learned District Judge shall defer
hearing of Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2021."
10. On 02.07.2025, the following order is passed in the
aforesaid Civil Revision Application:-
"Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on
account of paucity of time. Stand over to 24/09/2025. If any
ad-interim / interim relief is operating till today, the same shall
continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim / interim
relief is granted not for a limited period, the same shall remain
unaffected."
11. However, said interim order was remain to be continued
after 24.09.2025 but said interim order dated 19.03.2025 has not
been vacated. Since the interim order vacated by the specific order,
there is presumption that the interim order granted on 19.03.2025 in
Civil Revision Application No.146 of 2025, is continued.
7 of 23
(( 8 )) WP**-10521-2025
12. Needless to say that, on 30.11.2024, the present
petitioner/defendant in previous suit, filed Commercial Suit No.1 of
2024 before the District Judge and Commercial Court at Latur,
wherein the present respondent/plaintiff in previous suit, impleaded
as defendant. In the subsequent suit, the plaintiff prayed as under:-
"1. The Defendant may kindly be restrained by an order of
temporary injunction from using the mark "Champion" in any
manner in respect of its edible oils, which constitutes passing
off the Defendant's goods (edible oils and in particular
Soyabean oil and sunflower) as the Plaintiff's goods.
2. The Defendant may be restrained by order of temporary
injunction from using the mark - "Champion" in any manner
in respect of its edible oils, which constitutes an infringement of
the Plaintiff's trademark "Kirti Champion";
3. Any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
13. After service of notice, the present respondent/defendant
in subsequent suit, filed Exh.15 application under Section 10 read
with Section 151 of C.P.C., and prayed for stay of suit till decision of
Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2021 pending between the petitioner and
respondent before the learned District Judge, Pune.
14. The present petitioner filed Reply at Exh. 18 contending
that, the suit by him is in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 12A
of the Commercial Courts Act and it is pending before the competent
8 of 23
(( 9 )) WP**-10521-2025
court having jurisdiction and to grant relief prayed in the suit.
However, the respondent filed Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2021,
which is pending on file of the learned District Judge, Pune is not
designated as a Commercial Court within meaning of Section 2(1)(c)
(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act. Therefore, Commercial suit filed
by him can be decided on its merits and not hit by Sec. 10 of CPC,
hence, prayed for rejection of application Exh. 18.
15. On 05.06.2025, the learned District Judge-1 &
Commercial Court, passed the impugned order and stayed the
petitioner's suit under Section 10 of the C.P.C., till decision of Special
Civil Suit No. 24 of 2021, pending before the learned District Judge,
Pune.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner/plaintiff
in subsequent suit canvassed that, the order dated 19.06.2025 passed
in Civil Revision Application No. 146 of 2025 by the Principal Seat at
Bombay is binding on both the parties as well as the learned District
Judge, Pune, whereby hearing of Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2021
was deferred, which amounts to a stay of the proceedings. However,
while passing the impugned order dated 06.05.2025, the learned
9 of 23
(( 10 )) WP**-10521-2025
Commercial Court, Latur, failed to appreciate the fact that the learned
District Judge-2, Pune, having no jurisdiction to try and decide
Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2021, whereas the suit filed by the present
petitioner, bearing Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2024 before the
Commercial Court, Latur is empowers to grant relief in the
commercial suit. Therefore, subsequent suit filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff is not hit by Section 10 of C.P.C.. However, the
Commercial Court, Latur, failed to consider scope of Section 10 of the
C.P.C., and granted a stay of the proceedings foreclosing statutory
right of the petitioner to seek injunction in respect of infringement
trademark on part of the present Respondent.
17. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel for
the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in ASPI Jal and
Another v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor, (2013) 4 SCC 333, wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on National Institute of Mental Health
& Neuro Services Vs. C. Parameshwara, (2005) 2 SCC 256. The
Hon'ble Apex Court considered scope of Section 10 of the C.P.C., and
held that, where a suit is instituted in a court to which the provisions
of the C.P.C. apply, such court shall not proceed with the trial of
another suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and
10 of 23
(( 11 )) WP**-10521-2025
substantially in issue is a previously instituted suit between the same
parties. For the application of the provisions of Section 10 of the
C.P.C., it is further required that the court in which the previous suit is
pending is competent to grant the claimed relief. The use of the
negative expression in Section 10, namely, "no court shall proceed
with the trial of any suit," makes the provision mandatory, and the
court in which the subsequent suit has been filed is prohibited from
proceeding with the trial of that suit if the conditions laid down in
Section 10 of the Code are satisfied. The basic purpose and
underlying object of Section 10 of the Code is to prevent courts of
concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and
adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause
of action, the same subject matter, and the same relief. This provision
seeks to confine the plaintiff to one litigation so as to avoid the
possibility of contradictory verdicts by two courts in respect of the
same relief and is intended to protect the defendant from multiplicity
of proceedings.
18. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent canvassed that, on 25.06.2021, the respondent filed
Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2021 before the learned District Judge,
11 of 23
(( 12 )) WP**-10521-2025
Pune, and specifically prayed for a declaration and injunction
restraining the present petitioner/defendant in the previous suit from
using any trademark "Champion" identical to the respondent's
trademark for carrying on the business of oil or any other type of
edible oil on ground that the respondent is holding registration for
said trademark. However, the present petitioner, who is the defendant
in former suit filed the subsequent Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2024 on
30.11.2024 before the Commercial Court, Latur, and prayed for a
injunction restraining the respondent from using the trademark
"Champion" in respect of edible oil. Consequently, the respondent
filed application Exh. 15 under Section 10 of the C.P.C., praying for a
stay of the suit.
19. On 06.05.2025, the learned District Judge-2 and
Commercial Court, Latur, passed the impugned order and stayed said
commercial suit till decision of earlier Special Civil Suit No.24 of
2021 on the ground that, the subject matter of previous suit and
subsequent suit is same and both the suits are pertaining to
commercial dispute in respect of using trademark "Champion", for
carrying the business of edible oil. Therefore, principle of " res
subjudice" is applicable envisage under Section 10 of C.P.C.,
12 of 23
(( 13 )) WP**-10521-2025
therefore, to prevent multiplicity of suits and contradictory
judgments further proceeding of Commercial Suit No.1 of 2024 is
stayed, hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.
20. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that on
25.06.2021, the respondent herein (plaintiff in previous suit), filed
Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2021 before the learned Additional
Session/District Judge, Pune and prayed for injunction against the
present respondent (defendant in previous suit) for using any
trademark similar to the registered trademark "Champion".
21. Sec. 134 and 135 of Trade Mark Act, 1999 provides as
under:
Sec. 134. Suit for infringement, etc., to be instituted before District
Court.--(1) No suit--
(a) for the infringement of a registered trade mark; or
(b) relating to any right in a registered trade mark; or
(c) for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any
trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the
plaintiff's trade mark, whether registered or unregistered, shall be
instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having
jurisdiction to try the suit.
(2) For the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), a District
Court having jurisdiction shall, notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or any other law for the
time being in force, include a District Court within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other
proceeding, the person instituting the suit or proceeding, or, where
there are more than one such persons any of them, actually and
voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.
Explanation.--For the purposes of sub-section (2), ―person includes
the registered proprietor and the registered user.
13 of 23
(( 14 )) WP**-10521-2025
Sec. 135. Relief in suits for infringement or for passing off.
(1) The relief which a court may grant in any suit for infringement or
passing off referred to in section 134 includes injunction (subject to
such terms, if any, as the court thinks fit) and at the option of the
plaintiff, either damages or an account of profits, together with or
without any order for the delivery-up of the infringing labels and marks
for destruction or erasure.
(2) The order of injunction under sub-section (1) may include an ex
parte injunction or any interlocutory order for any of the following
matters, namely:--
(a) for discovery of documents;
(b) preserving of infringing goods, documents or other evidence
which are related to the subject-matter of the suit;
(c) restraining the defendant from disposing of or dealing with his
assets in a manner which may adversely affect plaintiff's ability to
recover damages, costs or other pecuniary remedies which may be
finally awarded to the plaintiff.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the court
shall not grant relief by way of damages (other than nominal damages)
or on account of profits in any case;
(a) where in a suit for infringement of a trade mark, the infringement
complained of is in relation to a certification trade mark or collective
mark; or
(b) where in a suit for infringement the defendant satisfies the court--
(i) that at the time he commenced to use the trade mark complained of
in the suit, he was unaware and had no reasonable ground for believing
that the trade mark of the plaintiff was on the register or that the
plaintiff was a registered user using by way of permitted use; and
(ii) that when he became aware of the existence and nature of the
plaintiff's right in the trade mark, he forthwith ceased to use the trade
mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which it was
registered; or
(c) where in a suit for passing off, the defendant satisfies the court--
(i) that at the time he commenced to use the trade mark complained of
in the suit, he was unaware and had no reasonable ground for believing
that the trade mark for the plaintiff was in use; and
(ii) that when he became aware of the existence and nature of the
plaintiff's trade mark he forthwith ceased to use the trade mark
complained of.
14 of 23
(( 15 )) WP**-10521-2025
22. On scrutiny of Section 134 of Trade Marks Act, it appears
that for infringement of a registered trade mark or any right in
respect of a registered trade mark or passing off arising out of the use
of any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the
plaintiff's trade mark, shall be instituted in any court inferior to the
District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. Sub-section (2) of
Section 134 provides that a District Court having jurisdiction, shall
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,
or any other law for the time being in force, include a District Court
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the
institution of the suit, the person instituting the suit, the plaintiff or
where any defendant instituting a proceeding voluntarily resides or
carries on business.
Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, provides for relief in
the suits for infringement or for passing off registered trade mark
including injunction, damages or an account of profits.
23. Section 2(b) of the Commercial Courts Act, provides
definition of Commercial Court, as under:-
"(b) "Commercial Court" means the Commercial Court
constituted under sub-section (1) of section 3."
15 of 23
(( 16 )) WP**-10521-2025
24. On 27.08.2019, the State Government issued Notification
in exercise of its powers under the Commercial Courts Act and
designated the commercial courts as per amended ordinance 2018 in
respect of commercial disputes having pecuniary value of
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh). The court of learned Civil Judge
Senior Division, in district headquarter is designated as commercial
court for deciding commercial disputes specified value upto and
inclusive of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). The learned
District Judge-2 is appointed as commercial court under the
Commercial Courts Act at Headquarter for deciding commercial
disputes of specified value above Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore).
25. Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act
provides that "commercial dispute" relates to intellectual property
rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright,
patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and
semiconductor integrated circuits.
26. Needless to say, the present respondent (plaintiff in the
previous suit) filed reply Exh. 18 to Exh. 17 an application for return
16 of 23
(( 17 )) WP**-10521-2025
of plaint in Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2021 and admitted that the
suit filed by him is a commercial dispute and suit required to be listed
before the Commercial Court. However, due to administrative
oversight on the part of Officer of the Court it was listed before the
learned Additional Sessions/District Judge, Pune. Admittedly, the
learned Additional Sessions/District Judge, Pune is not designated as
Commercial Court under the Government Notification dated 27 th
August 2019. Therefore, said court having no jurisdiction to grant the
relief, which has been claimed by the present Respondent.
27. Needless to say, on 28.01.2024, the learned Additional
Sessions/District Judge, Pune, passed an order below Exh. 17 in
Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2021. However, on 19.03.2025, the
coordinate bench of this Court at the Principal Seat passed the order
in Civil Revision Application No. 146 of 2025, directing the learned
District Judge, Pune, to defer hearing of said suit till 23.04.2025.
Subsequently, on 02.07.2025, said Revision not been heard due to
paucity of time and it was adjourned to 24.09.2025 and directed to
continue earlier interim order till next date. However, subsequently
said interim order not extended because it was not enlisted. Under
17 of 23
(( 18 )) WP**-10521-2025
these circumstances, there is presumption that the earlier interim
order is continued.
28. It is an admitted fact that, on 30.11.2024, the present
petitioner filed Commercial Suit No.1 of 2024 before the Commercial
Court at Latur, having jurisdiction to try and decide the commercial
dispute between the petitioner and respondent. The Special Civil Suit
No.24 of 2021 filed by the respondent before the learned Additional
District Judge, Pune but said Court is not designated as Commercial
Court within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Commercial Courts
Act and under Notification dated 27 th August 2019. Therefore, said
Court is not competent to grant the relief prayed in said suit.
29. In the case in hand, the legal question involves that the
plaintiff who is the defendant in subsequent suit, though filed the suit
before the Court which is not having jurisdiction to grant relief and
the subsequent suit filed by the defendant before the competent Court
having jurisdiction to grant relief, can stay the subsequent suit under
Section 10 of C.P.C. The core issue involved around the interplay
between the jurisdictional provisions of the Trade Marks Act and the
Commercial Court Act 2015, particularly in determining whether the
18 of 23
(( 19 )) WP**-10521-2025
designated Commercial Court having authority to entertain such suit
as well as the Court dealing with the commercial dispute who has not
been designated as Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts
Act, can entertain and decide the suit.
30. Needless to say that the Commercial Courts Act having
overriding effect of the legislature intend to expedite commercial
dispute at various levels by constituting the specialized Courts.
Therefore, though under Section 134(2) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999,
the suit pertaining to infringement of Trademark is to be instituted
before the District Court but due to overriding effect of the
Commercial Courts Act, said commercial dispute required to be
adjudicated by the Commercial Court because the Commercial Court
Act having overriding effect to Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. As
per Section 10 of C.P.C., the trial of the subsequent suit can only be
stayed when the court trying the previous suit having jurisdiction to
grant relief in the subsequent suit.
31. In Minocher Behranji Damania Vs. Homa N. Dadachanji
others, 1981 Mh.L.J. 659, the plaintiff had filed a suit in the City
Civil Court for declaration of trespass, possession and injunction
19 of 23
(( 20 )) WP**-10521-2025
against the defendant. The defendant had previously filed a suit in
the Small Causes Court for a declaration of tenancy. The learned City
Civil Court stayed the suit under Section 10 of the C.P.C., on ground
that the subject matter of both suits was the same and the Small
Causes Court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the City
Civil Court. Under these circumstances, the co-ordinate bench of this
Court at Principal Seat held that, the stay order was not valid,
because of the Small Cause Court did not have jurisdiction to grant
relief claimed in the City Civil Court suit and as per Section 10 of the
C.P.C., previously instituted suit must be pending in a Court that has
jurisdiction to grant relief claimed in the subsequent suit. Therefore,
Section 10 of C.P.C. would apply if the earlier suit is instituted in a
court which is having jurisdiction to grant relief claimed in the suit
and the subsequent suit is also instituted in the court having
jurisdiction to grant such relief. Merely, the earlier suit is pending
before the Court having no jurisdiction to try and decide or to grant
relief prayed in the earlier suit and if the subsequent suit is pending
before the competent Court having jurisdiction to grant relief claimed
in the suit. In such circumstances, the subsequent suit is not liable to
be stayed as both the suits cannot said to be parallel suits.
20 of 23
(( 21 )) WP**-10521-2025
32. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in ASPI Jal vs. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor, (2013) 4 SCC 333 , the
Delhi High Court in H. S. Sahni Vs Mukul Singhal, (2022) 1 HCC
(Del) 155, observed in para 22 & 23, as under:
"22. Even in Aspi Jal (supra), which is relied upon by the
learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, the Supreme Court has
reiterated that the use of the negative expression in Section 10
CPC makes the provision mandatory and the court in which the
subsequent suit has been filed is prohibited from proceeding
with the trial of that suit. It was reaffirmed that the basic
purpose and the underlying object of Section 10 of the Code is
to prevent the courts of concurrent jurisdiction from
simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel
litigations in respect of same cause of action, same subject
matter and the same relief. The objective is also to avoid the
possibility of contradictory verdicts by two courts in respect of
the same relief and is aimed to protect the defendant from
multiplicity of proceedings.
23. The fundamental test that is to be applied to determine
whether Section 10 was applicable or not, is to see whether on
the final decision being reached in the first suit, such decision
would operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit. Where
there was "identity of matter" in both the suits i.e., the whole of
the subject matter in both the proceedings were identical, even
if further reliefs were claimed in the subsequent suit, it would
be immaterial and the second suit would necessarily have to be
stayed."
33. It is pertinent to note that, the coordinate bench of this
Court at Principal Seat, directed the Additional Sessions/District
21 of 23
(( 22 )) WP**-10521-2025
Judge, Pune to defer hearing of Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2021 and
said interim order not yet vacated. Therefore, by the impugned order
dated 06.05.2025, passed by the learned District Judge-2 /
Commercial Court, Latur, could not have stay proceeding of
Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2024 by invoking Section 10 of C.P.C.
However, the learned trial Court misinterpreted provisions of
Commercial Court Act and Government Notification and wrongly held
that, the learned District Judge, Pune, having jurisdiction and
competent to dispose of the Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2021 and
principle of "res subjudice" under Section 10 of C.P.C., is applicable.
Therefore, to my considered view, impugned order is illegal, bad in
law, hence, liable to be quashed and set aside. In view of above
discussion, the present Writ Petition needs to be allowed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the
Learned District Judge-2 / Commercial Court, Latur,
below Exhibit-15 in Commercial Suit No.1 of 2024, is
hereby quashed and set aside.
22 of 23
(( 23 )) WP**-10521-2025
(iii) The trial Court is directed to proceed with Commercial
Suit No.1 of 2024, as per law.
(iv) Accordingly, Rule is made absolute.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]
34. Later on, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent prayed for stay to the effect and operation of the
impugned order for a period of four weeks to enable him to approach
before the appropriate Court. However, the said request is hereby
rejected as no substantial ground is set out.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]
SMS
23 of 23
