[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nirmala Wadhwa vs Seth Sarnamal Aggarwal Trust ... on 2 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:51955]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6037/2022
1. Nirmala Wadhwa W/o Shri Arjun Dev Wadhwa, Aged
About 58 Years, R/o A-1 Geetanjli Enclave (Chak 16
M.L.) Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
2. Shanti Prakash Katariya S/o Shri Ramditta Ram Katariya,
Aged About 60 Years, R/o House No. 1068, Near Sabji
Mandi, Purani Aabaadi, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Seth Sarnamal Aggarwal Trust, Hariyana Bhawan, Lakkad
Mandi Road, Sri Ganganagar Through Its Chairman, Shri
Om Prakash S/o Shri Sarnamal Aggarwal, Aged About 72
Years, R/o 91 Purani Dhanmandi, Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
2. Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Sarnamal Aggarwal, Aged
About 72 Years, R/o 91 Purani Dhanmandi, Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan), Chairman, Seth Sarnamal
Aggarwal Trust, Hariyana Bhawan, Lakkad Mandi Road,
Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
3. Smt. Pushba Rani W/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 70
Years, R/o 91 Purani Dhanmandi, Sri Ganganagar, Trustee
Seth Sarnamal Aggarwal Trust, Hariyana Bhawan, Lakkad
Mandi Road, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
4. Praveen Goyal S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 44
Years, R/o 91 Purani Dhanmandi, Sri Ganganagar, Trustee
Seth Sarnamal Aggarwal Trust, Hariyana Bhawan, Lakkad
Mandi Road, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aakash Kukkar through V.C
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 04:25:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 09:02:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51955] (2 of 10) [CW-6037/2022]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
ARGUMENTS CONCLUDED ON : 24/11/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON : 24/11/2025
FULL ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 02/12/2025
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
"1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
impugned order dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure P/19)
passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Rent Tribunal,
Sri Ganganagar in Rent Petition No. 62/2019 titled as
"Seth Sarnamal Aggarwal Trust & Ors. V/s Nirmla
Wadhwa & Anr." may kindly be quashed and set aside.
2. By an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, the
Application Dated 22.01.2020 (Annexure P/17) under
section 10 CPC preferred by the Petitioners may kindly
be allowed."
2. The facts, insofar as necessary for determination of the
present controversy, are that the petitioners claim to have
purchased the property in question through two duly executed
agreement to sell, executed by the respondents. The first
agreement to sell was dated 24.04.2004 (Annexure P/1) and the
second agreement to sell was dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure P/8),
pertaining to two separate portions of premises commonly known
as "Hariyana Bhawan", situated at Plot No. 3 (Flour Mill), Industrial
Area, Block, Sri Ganganagar. As per the agreement to sell dated
24.04.2004, the petitioners claim to have paid the total amount of
Rs. 21,00,000 in parts, and their possession of the property, which
began as tenancy on 14.01.2004, was acknowledged in the
agreement itself. With respect to the subsequent agreement
dated 22.09.2010, the petitioners claim to have paid the full
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 04:25:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51955] (3 of 10) [CW-6037/2022]
consideration amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- in cash, upon which
possession of the relevant portion was delivered to them, with an
understanding interse that the formal sale deed would be
executed within eight years. When the respondents,
notwithstanding the petitioners' presence before the Sub-Registrar
on 30.04.2019, failed to execute the requisite sale deeds, the
petitioners instituted two Civil Suits bearing suit No. 18/2019 and
19/2019 before the Additional District Judge No.02, Sri
Ganganagar, seeking specific performance of the aforesaid
agreements, wherein interim orders of status quo came to be
passed. During pendency of the said suits, the respondents filed
the Rent Petition No. 62/2019 under Section 9 of the Rajasthan
Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") before the Rent
Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred as "learned
Tribunal"), seeking eviction of the petitioners from the property in
question. Upon which, the petitioners filed an application under
Section 10 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for
short "CPC") seeking stay of the rent proceedings on the ground
that the issues involved were directly and substantially in issue in
the pending civil suits. However, the learned Tribunal, by order
impugned dated 24.03.2022, rejected the said application. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal, the
petitioners have approached this Court, invoking its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 & 277 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order dated 24.03.2022, rejecting the application of the
petitioners filed under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC, is
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 04:25:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51955] (4 of 10) [CW-6037/2022]
perverse and unsustainable on the premise that two previously
instituted civil suits for specific performance concerning the very
same property and between the same parties are already pending
adjudication before the competent Civil Court, wherein interim
protection has also been granted. It was further urged that
despite being aware of the said pendency, the respondents have
deliberately filed a subsequent rent petition by suppressing
material facts and taking entirely contradictory stands regarding
title, tenancy, and sale agreements. Learned Counsel further
submitted that the issues relating to title, validity of sale
agreements, and their possession as purchasers are directly and
substantially in issue before the Civil Court, and continuation of
parallel rent proceedings would result in conflicting findings and
abuse of process of law. It was further contended that the learned
Tribunal failed to consider the mandate of Section 10 CPC and the
inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, and passed the impugned
order in a cursory manner without recording any finding on the
specific pleas raised by the petitioners. Thus, it was prayed that
the impugned order may be quashed and set aside, and the rent
proceedings pending before the learned Tribunal may be stayed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
vehemently opposing the arguments advanced at bar by learned
counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the learned Tribunal
has rightly dismissed the application filed by petitioners under
Section 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC. It was submitted
that the respondents have invoked the jurisdiction of the learned
Tribunal strictly in accordance with law, and the civil suits filed by
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 04:25:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51955] (5 of 10) [CW-6037/2022]
the petitioners have no nexus whatsoever with the Rent Petition
filed by the respondents. It was further contended that the
respondents-Trust has neither transferred the property in question
nor is legally competent to do so, and the petitioners are in
possession of the property in question in the capacity of tenants
only and not as purchasers. It was further averred that the parties
involved in the suit for specific performance and those before the
learned Tribunal are different, and the nature, basis, and reliefs
sought in these two proceedings are wholly distinct. As such, no
element of similarity, overlap, or uniformity exists between these
civil suits and the petition filed before the learned Tribunal. It was
also urged that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the
application, as the civil court, in any event, lacks jurisdiction to
grant the reliefs contemplated under the Act, and therefore, the
principles underlying Section 10 CPC have no application to the
facts of the present case. Therefore, it was prayed that the writ
petition, being devoid of merit and not maintainable in the eye of
law, deserves to be dismissed. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the
following judgments:-
1. National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences
vs. C. Parameshwara (2005) AIR(SC) 242.
2. H. K. Sharma vs. Ram Lal (2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases
153.
3. Madhav Das vs. Rajkumar Vyas Civil Writ Petition No.
15831 of 2019.
4. Shyam Sundar Malpani vs. Shyam Lal Sharma 2022(2)
CJ(Civ.)(Raj.) 897.
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 04:25:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51955] (6 of 10) [CW-6037/2022]
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material
available on record and the judgments cited at the bar.
6. In order to examine the applicability of the statutory bar
invoked by the petitioners, it becomes necessary to advert to
Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is reproduced for
ready reference:
"10. Stay of suit.-- No Court shall proceed with the trial of
any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and
substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between
the same parties, or between parties under whom they or
any of them claim litigating under the same title where such
suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India have
jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court
beyond the limits of India established or continued by the
Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before
the Supreme Court.
Explanation.--The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does
not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on
the same cause of action."
7. A bare perusal of Section 10 CPC indicates that its object is
to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously
proceeding with parallel suits involving issues that are directly and
substantially the same. The provision operates as a procedural
safeguard and comes into play only where the entire subject
matter of both suits is identical. The statutory expression "the
matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue" signifies an
issue that forms the core of the dispute, as distinguished from
questions that arise merely incidentally or collaterally. A common
property forming the subject matter of litigation does not, by
itself, attract bars of Section 10.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding Usha and
Another v. Shahjad Bi @ Sejad and Others [2024 3 CivCC
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 04:25:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51955] (7 of 10) [CW-6037/2022]
138], made a congruent observation to that in the case of
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences
(supra) and has categorically held as under:
"10. The object of this Section is to prevent courts of
concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel
suits in respect of the same matter in issue. This Section deals
with a rule of procedure. Section 10 applies only in cases
where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits is
identical. The crucial 3 words in Section 10 are "the matter in
issue is directly and substantially in issue" in the previously
instituted suit. The aforesaid words are different from
"incidentally or collaterally in issue." Therefore, there must be
identity of the matter in issue in both the suits inasmuch as
the subject matter in both the proceedings is identical. But
even on a consideration of the two suits, even if the property
in respect of two suits is one and the same but the issues are
separate and there is no identity at all with regard to the cause
of action and also the reliefs that are sought in both the suits,
the subsequent suit between the same parties, is not liable to
be stayed under Section 10. Not only the matter in issue in the
second suit should also be directly and substantially in issue in
the first suit, but that the second suit must be for the same
relief as that claimed in the first suit. Therefore, it is not only
the identical subject matter but also the relief claimed in both
suits that determine the applicability of Section 10. Thus, for
instance, if the first suit is for partition and separate
possession of the suit scheduled property and the second suit
is for ejectment of a tenant from the same, then Section 10
would not apply."
9. A coordinate bench of this Court while deciding Civil Writ
Petition No. 15831/2019, Madhavdas v. Rajkumar Vyas,
decided on 06.11.2019, observed that mere execution of an
agreement to sell between the parties does not result in the
determination of tenancy, and held that the issues in a suit for
specific performance and a petition for eviction under the
Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 cannot be regarded as
substantially the same.
10. Further the applicability of Section 10 of the CPC has been
clearly elucidated in Aspi Jal And Another v. Khushroo
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 04:25:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51955] (8 of 10) [CW-6037/2022]
Rustom Dadyburjor [AIR 2013 SC 1712] wherein the Apex
Court observed as under:
"11. In the present case, the parties in all the three suits are
one and the same and the court in which the first two suits
have been instituted is competent to grant the relief claimed in
the third suit. The only question which invites our adjudication
is as to whether "the matter in issue is also directly and
substantially in issue in previously instituted suits". The key
words in Section 10 are "the matter in issue is directly and
substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit". The test for
applicability of Section 10 of the Code is whether on a final
decision being reached in the previously instituted suit, such
decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit.
To put it differently one may ask, can the plaintiff get the same
relief in the subsequent suit, if the earlier suit has been
dismissed? In our opinion, if the answer is in the affirmative,
the subsequent suit is not fit to be stayed..."
11. In the present matter, the central issue concerns the
applicability of Section 10 of CPC. The provision can be invoked
only where the issues requiring adjudication in the later
proceeding correspond directly and substantially with those arising
in the previously instituted suit. The determinative test lies in
whether the essential legal questions are the same, and not
simply whether the same property or parties are involved. The law
does not contemplate a stay where the nature of the rights
asserted, the causes of action invoked, or the reliefs sought are
fundamentally distinct.
12. It is also pertinent to note that the Rent Tribunal, functioning
under the special and self-contained act, exercises a circumscribed
statutory jurisdiction exclusively over landlord-tenant matters and
eviction. By virtue of Section 21 of the Act, the provisions of the
CPC apply to the Rent Tribunal only to the extent expressly
permitted, and the Rent Tribunal, not being a civil court, cannot
have its proceedings mechanically equated with a civil suit. A
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 04:25:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51955] (9 of 10) [CW-6037/2022]
petition before the Rent Tribunal, invoked under a special
statutory jurisdiction, is fundamentally differs, both in form and in
scope, from a civil suit instituted before a civil court. Proceedings
of such character do not automatically become subordinate to a
civil action merely because a separate dispute concerning the
same property is pending before a civil court. Further, the Rent
Tribunal is first required to determine the existence of a landlord-
tenant relationship, which constitutes a threshold and independent
enquiry under the statute. This determination is entirely separate
from the issues canvassed in a civil action concerning contractual
or proprietary rights.
13. In the case at hand, the petitioners have instituted two civil
suits seeking specific performance of distinct agreement to sell
pertaining to two separate portions of the property in question,
whereas the respondents, during the pendency of those suits,
seeking possession of the same premises, filed eviction petition
before the learned Tribunal. The threshold questions before the
learned tribunal, namely the existence and nature of the landlord
tenant relationship and the grounds for eviction, are entirely
independent of the contractual disputes regarding specific
performance of contract, with the causes of action, statutory
foundations, and reliefs in the two forums being fundamentally
distinct. Thus, the key issues in the two proceedings are distinct in
law and in substances, and the proceedings before the learned
Tribunal need not be stayed on account of the pending civil suits.
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 04:25:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51955] (10 of 10) [CW-6037/2022]
14. In the light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the
factual matrix of the present case, this Court, exercising its limited
supervisory jurisdiction, finds no illegality, perversity, or
jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned order dated 24.03.2022
passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Rent Petition
No.62/2019 while rejecting the application of the petitioners filed
under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC.
15. Consequently, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J
172-Anill/-
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 04:25:24 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
