Umesh Chandra Goyal v. Nem Kumar Jain — 1989 DIGILAW 523 (ALL)

JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - Applicant Umesh Chandra Goel (Umesh Gupta) feeling aggrieved against the order of Sri A. N. Mittal, 6th Additional Civil Judge, Agra, dated 9-2-1989, dismissing the application No. 48C in Suit No. 321 of 1987, has preferred this revision. 2. The facts in a narrow compass are that the applicant Umesh Chandra Goel filed a Suit No. 1054 of 1986 in which following reliefs were claimed : "A. That by a decree of declaration it may be declared that the plaintiff is a tenant in premises No. 31/59, Khatipara, Lohamandi, Agra on behalf of the defendant No. 1 while holding that the alleged partnership as mentioned in the partnership deed dated 6-10-1985 is a clog on partnership as rent and consequently the defendants be restrained from evicting the plaintiff forcibly by taking law in their hands from the godown in property No. 31/59, Khatipara, Lohamandi, Agra in any manner whatsoever. B. Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff as against the defendants. C. Any other relief which the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be granted." 3. The opposite parties filed Suit No. 321 of 1987 titling, "Nemkumar Jain v. Umesh Chand Goel" in which following reliefs were claimed: A. That it be declared that there was partnership between the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant during the period 24-10-1984 to 23-10-1986 under the same and style of M/s. Eklabya Kumar Jain and Company, and that the plaintiff No. 2 was admitted to the benefits of the partnership during this period. B. That it may also be declared that the partnership M/s. Eklabya Kumar Jain and Company stood dissolved on 23-10-1986. C. That the defendant be ordered to give true and correct account of the partnership M/s. Eklabya Kumar Jain and Company for the period 24-10-1984 to 23-10-1986 and a decree for such amount as may be found due to the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 with interest up to the date of payment be passed against the defendant. D. That a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction be passed against the defendant from using the godown of premises No. 31/99 Khatipara, Lohammandi, Agra in any way, whatsoever. E. That a decree for Rs. 1 and 2 with interest up to the date of payment be passed against the defendant. D. That a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction be passed against the defendant from using the godown of premises No. 31/99 Khatipara, Lohammandi, Agra in any way, whatsoever. E. That a decree for Rs. 9,000/- along with interest be passed against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff No. 2 towards damage for wrongful and illegal use of the godown of premises No. 31/59 from 24-10-1986 up to the filing of the suit. F. That a decree for future and pendente lite damages @ Rs. 150/- per day be passed against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff No. 2,-court-fee on which shall be paid at the time of the execution of the decree. G. That the costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendant. H. That such other relief as the nature of the case admits of, be granted to the plaintiffs." 4. The defendant in Suit No. 321 of 1987, filed an application that the instant suit be stayed till the disposal of Suit No. 1054 of 1986. By a detailed and reasoned order the trial Court dismissed this application, thus, giving rise to this revision. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Prakash Gupta has very strenuously submitted that the reliefs in both the suits are identical and the Court below wrongly held that the reliefs are distinct and separate. It is very difficult to agree to such a submission. A mere perusal of the reliefs claimed in two suits clearly reveals that both the suits are of different in nature and the trial Court has very graphically dealt with this fact and passed the detailed order. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the trial Court wrongly found that the parties are not the same the array of parties show that one of the plaintiffs in Suit No. 231 of 87 is distinct. I do not find any wrongful exercise of the jurisdiction nor I find the Court below acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party Sri R.P. Goel has submitted that some compromise is being arrived at between the parties. I do not find any wrongful exercise of the jurisdiction nor I find the Court below acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party Sri R.P. Goel has submitted that some compromise is being arrived at between the parties. Such a compromise is of no avail in the disposal of this revision and in any case, there is no impediment for disposing it. 7. In the result the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. The costs on parties.