# Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Smt. Poonam Devi

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 480
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-08
- **Case number:** Matter Under Article 227 No. 485 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-kumar-gupta-v-smt-poonam-devi-46902
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India,1950-Article 227application-Consolidation
of
suits
and
proceedings-rejection-the petitioner filed
two suits against the respondent for
seeking relief in the court having different
jurisdiction-In
previously
instituted
suit(Original Suit), he claimed relief for
permanent injunction for restraining the
tenant from obstructing the light and air
facilities of the plaintiffs-the Subsequent
Suit (SCC suit) pending before the Small
Cause
Court
for
eviction
of
the
defendant/tenant for arrears of rent and
constructions raised without the consent
of the landlords-the judge, court of Small
Causes cannot grant the relief claimed in
the Original Suit-Section 10 C.P.C. would
not apply, both the proceedings should be
in suits between the same parties and it
would not apply to proceedings initiated
under
any
other
Statute-Hence,
no
interference requires.(Para 3 to 12)

The Petition is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
different points of time and the same
cannot be said to be parts of the same
transaction. There is no material to suggest
that the sub stratum of the second FIR is
the same as that of the first FIR.

17. Counsel for the applicant has not
been able to demonstrate that the two FIRs
can be said to be related to the same
incident or to the same transaction, as was
sought to be contended by him. He has not
been able to dispute the factual and the
legal position pointed out by the learned
Additional Advocate General, and has also
not been able to point out any other ground
which may warrant interference at this
stage. He makes a prayer for withdrawal of
the present application.

18. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed,
accordingly.
----------
(2021)03ILR A480
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 485 of 2021

Rajesh Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Poonam Devi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Abu Bakht, Sri Nitin Jain, Sri Pramod Kumar
Jain (Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Sri Siddharth Nandan

A. Constitution of India,1950-Article 227application-Consolidation
of
suits
and
proceedings-rejection-the petitioner filed
two suits against the respondent for
seeking relief in the court having different
jurisdiction-In
previously
instituted
suit(Original Suit), he claimed relief for
permanent injunction for restraining the
tenant from obstructing the light and air
facilities of the plaintiffs-the Subsequent
Suit (SCC suit) pending before the Small
Cause
Court
for
eviction
of
the
defendant/tenant for arrears of rent and
constructions raised without the consent
of the landlords-the judge, court of Small
Causes cannot grant the relief claimed in
the Original Suit-Section 10 C.P.C. would
not apply, both the proceedings should be
in suits between the same parties and it
would not apply to proceedings initiated
under
any
other
Statute-Hence,
no
interference requires.(Para 3 to 12)

The Petition is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Anandan Gupta Vs Narain Agarwal & ors.,
(1984) 2 ARC 447

2. Chandra Swaroop Sinha Vs Smt. Manorama
Singh, (1981) AIR Alld. 230

3. Ram Narain Gupta (Since deceased) & ors.Vs
Hari Om Agarwal & anr.(2012) 1 ARC 664

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abu
Bakht, learned counsel for the petitionertenant and Sri Siddharth Nandan, learned
counsl for the respondent-landlord and
perused the record.

2. Present petition has been filed
challenging the impugned order dated
17.2.2020 passed by J.S.C.C./Civil Judge
(S.D.), Deoria and the order dated 13.11.2020
passed by the District Judge, Deoria.

3. By the impugned order dated
17.2.2020 application being paper no.
3 All. Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Smt. Poonam Devi
481
110Ga filed by the petitioner-tenant herein
for consolidation of two suits, being
Original Suit No. 107 of 2013 (Rajesh vs.
Poonam) filed by the petitioner for
permanent injunction with SCC Suit No. 06
of 2017, has been rejected on the ground
that the Courts are different and the parties
are also different and the subject matter of
the suit is also different. It was also noticed
that SCC suit can be heard by Judge Small
Causes
Court
only
and
therefore,
consolidation cannot be permitted and
accordingly, the said application was
rejected. Revision filed against the same
was also dismissed.

4. Challenging the impugned orders,
submission of learned Senior Counsel is
that subject matter of the suit is same and
raising of wall A and B as indicated in the
suit for injunction is substantial in nature
and involved in both the cases. He has
placed reliance on a judgement of this
Court in Anandan Gupta vs. Navin Agarwal
and others, 1984 (2) ARC 447.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that both the courts are
having different jurisdictions and both the
suits cannot be tried together and the
parties are also different. It is further
submitted that subject matter of the suit is
also different as in the original suit prayer
for permanent injunction has been made
and the SCC suit has been filed for rent and
eviction, therefore, application filed in SCC
suit for consolidation of suits has rightly
been rejected by the courts below. He has
placed reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in Chandra
Swaroop Sinha vs. Smt. Manorama Singh,
AIR 1981 Alld. 230 and on a judgement of
Hon'ble Single Judge in Ram Narain Gupta
(since deceased) and others vs. Hari Om
Agarwal and another, 2012 (1) ARC 664.

6. I have considered the rival
submissions and perused the record.

7. It is not in dispute that previously
instituted suit is the Original Suit No. 107
of 2013 seeking relief of permanent
injunction and subsequently instituted suit
is the SCC suit No. 6 of 2017 filed by the
respondent-landlord
herein
rent
and
eviction.

8. Order IV-A inserted in State of UP
vide UP Act 57 of 1976, Section 5 with
effect form 1.1.1977 provides as under:

"1.
Consolidation
of
suits
and
proceedings- When two or more suits or
proceedings are pending in the same court,
and the court is of opinion that it is
expedient in the interest of justice, it may
by order direct their joint trial, whereupon
all such suits and proceedings may be
decided upon the evidence in all or any
such suits or proceedings."

9. The distinction between an original
suit and SCC suit has been taken note in
paragraph 10, 11, 15, 16 and 21 of Ram
Narain Gupta (supra), which are quoted as
under:

10. It will also be appropriate to refer
to the provisions of Sections 15 as amended
in the State and 16 of the Act which are as
follows:-

"15. Cognizance of suits by Courts of
Small Causes.--(1) A Court of Small
Causes shall not take cognizance of the
suits specified in the Second Schedule as
suits expected from the cognizance of a
Court of Small Causes.

(2) Subject to the exceptions specified
in that Schedule and to the provisions of
any enactment for the time being in force,
all suits of a civil nature of which the value
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
does not exceed five thousand rupees shall be
cognizable by a Court of Small Causes:

Provided that in relation to suits by the
lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a
building after the determination of his lease or
for recovery from him of rent in respect of the
period of occupation thereof during the
continuance of the lease, or of compensation for
use
and
occupation
thereof
after
the
determination of the lease, the reference in this
sub-section to five thousand rupees shall be
construed as a reference of twenty-five
thousand rupees.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this subsection, the expression ''building' has the same
meaning as in Art. (4) in the Second Schedule.

16. Exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of Small
Causes.-- Save as expressly provided by this Act
or by any other enactment for the time being in
force, a suit cognizable by a Court of Small
Causes shall not be tried by any other Court
having jurisdiction within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by which
the suit is triable."

11. In the present, case the previously
instituted suit is Original Suit No.197 of 2008. The
relief claimed in this suit is for permanent
injunction and for restraining the defendanttenant from obstructing the light and air facilities
of the plaintiffs. The subsequent suit is SCC Suit
No.169 of 2008 pending before the Judge, Court
of Small Causes for eviction of the defendant as he
was in arrears of rent and had raised
constructions without the consent of the landlords.
The subsequent suit is required to be decided in a
summary manner provided under the Act and the
reliefs in the two suits is different.

15. The same is the position in the present
case. The Judge, Court of Small Causes cannot
grant the relief claimed in the Original Suit. It is
for this reason that the application filed by the
defendant for stay of the proceedings in the
subsequent suit had been rejected.

16. The matter can also be examined from
another aspect as to whether Section 10 CPC
would be applicable to proceedings before the
Judge, Court of Small Causes.

21. The aforesaid decisions clearly hold that
for Section 10 CPC to apply, both the proceedings
should be in suits between the same parties and it
will not apply to proceedings initiated under any
other Statute. In the present case SCC Suit has
been filed under the provisions of the Act. It has,
therefore, to be held that Section 10 CPC will not
apply to proceedings initiated under the Act.
 (Emphasis supplied)

10. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that both
the suits are pending in different courts seeking
different reliefs. The application was filed before
the Judge Small Causes Court, which has no
jurisdiction to decide the original suit for
injunction.

11.

For
the
discussions
made
hereinabove, I find that the case relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in Anandan
Gupta (supra) is of no help to him.

12. In such view of the matter, I do not
find any good ground to interfere in the
impugned orders.

13. Present petition lacks merits and is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------

(2021)03ILR A482
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 1008 of 2021
(Civil)

Shyam Sunder Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
Jagat & Ors. ...Respondents