Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2815 (ALL)

Shakuntala Devi v. Nain Singh

2013-11-18

MANOJ MISRA

body2013
JUDGMENT Manoj Misra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the District Judge, Bulandshahr in Civil Revision No. NIL of 2013 as also the order dated 12.08.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-III, Bulandshahr in Original Suit No. 41 of 1989 whereby the application of the petitioner seeking stay of the suit proceedings, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected. 3. A perusal of the record reveals that earlier an issue was framed by the court as to whether the suit proceeding was liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said issue was decided in favour of the petitioner, against which a revision was filed by the other side. The revisional court decided the said issue against the petitioner and held that the suit proceeding is not liable to be stayed, under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code. Against the decision of the revisional court, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 57978 of 2012 before this Court and this Court also held that the suit was not liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Having failed in obtaining a stay of the suit proceedings under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner applied for stay of proceedings under Section 151 C.P.C., which has been rejected by the impugned orders. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the courts below, inasmuch as, it has been specifically held by the Apex Court in the case of? National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara : 2005 (2) SCC 256 , in para 12, as follows: "12. In the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal , it has been held that inherent jurisdiction of the Court to make orders ex debito justitiae is undoubtedly affirmed by Section 151 CPC, but that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the provisions of the Code. Where the Code deals expressly with a particular matter, the provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive. Where the Code deals expressly with a particular matter, the provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive. In the present case, as stated above, Section 10 CPC has no application and consequently, it was not open to the High Court to bye-pass Section 10 CPC by invoking Section 151 CPC." 5. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed.