Thakur Dass Wadhwa vs M/S Coromandal Agrico Pvt. Ltd.
2011 Latest Caselaw 5173 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Judgment: 20.10.2011

+             CM (M) No. 1225/2011 & CM No.19387/2011

THAKUR DASS WADHWA                             ........... Petitioner
                Through:            Mr. Sanjay Shangari,
                                    Advocate.
            Versus
M/S COROMANDAL AGRICO PVT. LTD.                 ..........Respondent
                 Through: Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

    1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
       see the judgment?

    2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?               Yes

    3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                            Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 Order impugned is the order dated 22.09.2011 vide which

the application filed by the defendant under Section 10 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had

been dismissed.

2 The case set up by the defendant in his application under

Section 10 of the Code was that he had filed two suits at

Abohar, Punjab; issues arising in the said suits are common and

verbatim the issues raised in the present suit; present suit as also

the earlier two suits are suits for recovery and they also relate to

the transaction conducted during the same period; present suit

filed in Delhi is thus liable to be stayed. The impugned order had

correctly construed the issues which were raised in the suits filed

by the defendant at Abohar, Punjab as also the suit filed by the

plaintiff in Delhi. It is not in dispute that out of two suits filed by

the defendant at Abohar, Punjab, one suit had been decreed and

one suit had been dismissed. The Court had noted the essential

ingredients of the provision of Section 10 of the Code; it had noted

that in the present suit the plaintiff was seeking recovery of an

amount against the defendant which was not the subject matter of

the suits before the court at Abohar, Punjab; it is also an admitted

position that no counter claim had been filed by the plaintiff in the

said two suits at Abohar, Punjab; thus the question whether the

plaintiff is entitled to recover any money from the defendant could

not be the subject matter of those two suits and the suit filed by

the plaintiff in Delhi was clearly maintainable. Application under

Section 10 of the Code had been rightly dismissed. Impugned

order suffers from no infirmity.

3     Dismissed.

                                             INDERMEET KAUR, J


OCTOBER 20, 2011, a