Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
T. CHOITHRAM FOUNDATION & ORS. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Ms. Amritananda Chakravorty, Mr. Mihir Samson, Ms. Shreya Munoth, Ms. Asawari Sodhi, Ms. Anubha Goel, Mr. Mayank Joshi, Ms. Vaishnavi Prasad and Mr. Khush Aalam Singh, Advs.
Through: Mr. Gaurav Khanna, Mr. Gautam Barnwal, Ms. Sakshi Attri and Ms. Astha Agrawal, Advs.
1. The present application has been filed by the defendants invoking Section 10 CPC, seeking stay of the instant suit till the adjudication of suit bearing no. RCS/A/1255 of 2021 titled as “Choithram Charitable Trust & Ors. vs. Satish Motiani & Ors.” pending before the learned XXVI Additional District Judge, Indore (hereinafter ‘Indore Suit’) which was instituted prior to the instant suit. I.A. 14834/2023 (by defendants under Section 10 CPC seeking stay of present suit during the pendency of RCS/A/1255 of 2021 pending before the Ld. XXVI ADJ, Indore)
2. It is stated that the two suits pertain to the same reliefs sought with regard to the same set of trustees appointed to two family trusts i.e. T. Choithram Foundation [“TCF”] and Choithram Chairtable Trust [“CCT”] that were created by a common settler.
3. It is stated that the subject matter in both the suits is exactly same. Not only both the trusts were created by a common settler but they are managed by an identical Board of Trustees.
4. The challenge in both the suits is that defendant nos.[2] to 6, who are common in both the suits have been appointed by defendant no.1 to these trusts in violation of the provisions of trust deed, making “the matter in issue” substantially the same across both jurisdictions.
5. It is stated that the cause of action, as laid out in both suits by the plaintiffs, shows that the two suits are largely identical and most events took place on the same dates between the same parties. Further, the pleadings pertaining to both suits are also more or less similar. Moreover, same allegations are made, again by the same parties, with even identical timelines.
6. Mr. Gaurav Khanna, learned counsel for the defendants/applicants, invites the attention of the Court to paragraphs 14 and 17 of the application in support of his submission that the allegations in both suits are identical and the evidence/documents relied upon is similar.
7. He submits that in the two suits, the plaintiffs have relied upon 29 documents that are common to both. He also contends that such identity of facts and documents will lead to conflicting decisions and waste the precious judicial time.
8. Further inviting attention of the Court to para 19 of the application, Mr. Khanna contends that a perusal of causes of action in juxta position as laid out in both suits would show that the two are largely identical and most events have taken place on the same dates between the same parties.
9. He submits that Indore Suit was instituted prior to the Delhi Suit and has been dismissed, though, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal against the same, which is pending.
10. He further submits that the plaint in the Indore Suit has been rejected inter alia on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, based on plaintiffs’ letter dated 27.02.1996, which is a common document in both the suits and shows that the plaintiffs had knowledge of appointment of defendant nos. 2 and 3 as long back as in 1996.
11. He submits that in both the suits, there is challenge to the appointment of defendant nos. 2 and 3 as trustees in two different trusts, therefore, finding of limitation operates as res judicata.
12. He further contends that before filing the present application, the defendants/applicants had filed a transfer petition being T.P (C) 1228/2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking transfer of the instant suit to Indore to be tried along with Indore Suit. Though, the said transfer petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 26.07.2023, however, the Court was pleased to grant liberty to the defendants herein to avail of their remedies as provided under Section 10 of CPC. It is in this backdrop that the present application has been filed.
13. In support of his submissions, he places reliance on the following decisions: (i) Sankar Padam Thapa vs. Vijay Kumar Dinesh Chandra Agarwal., 2025 SCC Online SC 2194.
(ii) Chitivalasa Jute Mills vs. jaypee Rewa Cement.,(2004) 3 SCC 85 (iii) Jai Hind Iron Mart vs. Tulsiram Bhagwandas.,1952 SCC Online Bom 66.
14. Per contra, Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/non-applicants, submits that the two suits, namely, the instant suit and the Indore Suit, pertain to two different trusts.
15. He submits that the instant suit relates to the illegal appointment of trustees in the Plaintiff no. 1 Trust, namely, T. Choithram Foundation, which is a trust registered in New Delhi. On the other hand, the Indore Suit deals with the illegal appointment of trustees in the Choithram Charitable Trust, which is a trust registered in Madhya Pradesh.
16. He submits that the trust deeds of the two trusts are different. Elaborating further, he submits that the trust deed of plaintiff no.1 is dated 24.05.1971 while the trust deed of Choithram Charitable Trust is dated 29.12.1970. Further, various provisions including relating to quoram, number of trustees, notice of meetings and removal of trustees are different in two trust deeds.
17. Furthermore, the Choithram Charitable Trust is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, read with the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Rules, 1962, whereas the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the Plaintiff no. 1 Trust, which is registered in Delhi.
18. He submits that the two trusts administer a completely separate set of institutions and properties and there is no overlap between the two. Substantiating this submission, he submits that the plaintiff no. 1 Trust runs schools, whereas the Choithram Charitable Trust runs hospitals.
19. He further contends that separate meetings have been held with regard to the two trusts and the said two trusts maintain separate minutes of meetings, as well as separate attendance registers.
20. He submits that, as per the defendants, only 29 documents are common to the two suits, which represent only a fraction of the total documents filed by the plaintiffs in the two suits. Elaborating on this submission, he contends that in the instant suit, the plaintiffs have filed a total of 150 documents, whereas in Indore Suit, the documents filed are 108 in number.
21. He further submits that the cause of action in the two suits is different; namely, the discovery of a false FCRA affidavit by defendant no. 4 in July 2021 in the Indore Suit, while the cause of action in the present suit relates to the communication dated 10.07.2021 by defendant no. 1 to plaintiff no. 2.
22. Mr. Mahajan further submits that the fundamental test to attract Section 10 of the CPC is whether the final decision in the first suit would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit.
23. He submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the dismissal of the Indore Suit would not operate as res judicata in the present suit. He further submits that Section 10 of the CPC applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter of the two suits is identical. In support of his submissions, he places reliance on the following decisions: (i) National Health Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs. C. Parameshwara., (2005) 2 SCC 256 (ii) Aspi Jal & Anr. vs. Khusroo Rustom Dadyburjor (2013) 4 SCC 33 (iii) HQRP Ltd. & Ors. vs. MTP Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC Online Del 4708 (iv) Ruchika Puglani vs. Aasna Digin (2022) SCC Online Del 3559 (v) Amita Vashist vs. Tarun Vedi., 2022 SCC Online Del 2954., (vi) Adarsh Sharma vs. Harsh Sharma., 2025 SCC Online Del 10749.
24. In rejoinder, Mr. Khanna submits that the fact that the trusts involved in the instant suit, as well as in the Indore Suit, are different is of no relevance; inasmuch as a trust is not a juristic entity and sues through its trustees. Therefore, since the trustees who are parties to the two suits are common and the subject matter involved is similar, the present suit ought to be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC.
25. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is imperative to note the provisions of Section 10 of the CPC, which govern the staying of a trial in a suit filed subsequently between the same parties, and in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue; the section reads as under:
26. The provisions of Section 10 of CPC have been the subject matter of consideration of various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as, of this Court. Before proceeding to examine the factual matrix of the present case, it would be apposite to advert to some of the decisions.
27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the decision of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (Supra), had the occasion to examine the underlying object for the applicability of Section 10 of the CPC. The Court observed that Section 10 of the CPC applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 of the CPC are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in the previously instituted suit. The words “directly and substantially in issue” are used in contradistinction to the words “incidentally or collaterally in issue.” Therefore, Section 10 of the CPC would apply only if there is an identical matter in issue in both the suits, which means that the whole of the subject matter in both the proceedings is identical. It was further held that the fundamental test to attract Section 10 of the CPC is whether, on a final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. The relevant extract from the said decision reads thus:
28. Again, in Aspi Jal (Supra), the issue involved was whether a third suit seeking eviction ought to be stayed on the ground that two earlier suits, instituted prior to the said third suit and seeking eviction from the same subject premises, were pending. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in the earlier two suits, the ground of eviction was undoubtedly the same, namely non-user, but it was for a different period; therefore, all three suits were based on different causes of action. Accordingly, the Court held that the provisions of Section 10 of the Code were not attracted so as to warrant the staying of the third suit. The relevant portion of the said decision reads thus:
29. Likewise, in Adarsh Sharma (Supra), a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the appeal arising out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting the application filed under Section 10 of CPC made following pertinent observations:
33. Further, it is not in dispute that the two trusts administer separate sets of institutions. Respondents/applicants themselves in para 12 of the present application has admitted this position wherein it has been delineated in clear terms that plaintiff no. 1 trust runs schools, whereas the Choithram Charitable Trust runs hospitals and colleges offering courses in nursing and paramedical sciences. There seems to be no overlap. Paragraph 12 of the instant application is extracted below for ready reference:
12. Since their inception, both Trusts have flourished in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, and now run several successful and prestigious educational and medical establishments. CCT runs the Choithram Dispensary, the Choithram Hospital & Research Centre, the Choithram College of Nursing, and the Choithram College of Paramedical Sciences. TCF runs four schools being the Choithram School, the Tirathbai Kalachand School, Choithram International, and the Choithram School, North Campus. It is pertinent to note that TCF, though registered in Delhi, functions out of the Choithram Hospital & Research Centre Campus in Indore and all of its operations are confined therein.
34. Furthermore, the plaintiffs/non applicants in their reply to the present application has made submission that separate meetings are held with regard to the two trusts and that there are separate minutes of meetings, as well as attendance registers, and the same has not been controverted by the defendants/applicants.
35. With respect to the submission advanced by Mr. Khanna asserting a commonality of 29 documents across both suits, the same was clarified by Mr. Mahajan that out of the total record of 150 documents filed by the plaintiff in the Indore suit and 108 documents in the present suit, merely 29 documents are common, which fact was also not disputed by Mr. Khanna.
36. Clearly, the whole of the subject matter in both suits is not substantially identical. Although the parties are substantially similar and some documents may be overlapping, the core issues remain distinct, viz., the subject matter involved in the two suits pertains to two different trusts, constituted and governed under two different statutes, and based in two different states. Further, the trust deeds of both trusts are different, and various provisions contained therein relating to the quorum, number of trustees, notice of meetings, and removal of trustees are distinct.
37. That apart, in the present suit the challenge is to the status of defendant nos. 2 to 6 as trustees of plaintiff no.1 trust i.e. T. Choithram Foundation, besides seeking declaration to the effect that plaintiff nos. 2 to 5 are the valid trustees of the said trust. In Indore Suit, the relief is somewhat similar but it is with regard to another trust i.e. Choithram Chairtable Trust. This also makes it plain that the cause of action is distinct.
38. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that merely because the trustees and a few documents are common to both suits, which otherwise deal with two independent trusts, it is not a ground to invoke Section 10 of the CPC. Needless to add that the staying of the present suit would also not be justified merely because a finding on the issue of limitation has been recorded in the Indore Suit, warranting dismissal of the said suit. Since the trusts involved in both suits are different, therefore, in the considered opinion of this court the finding as regards limitation in the Indore Suit will not operate as res judicata in the present suit.
39. The decisions relied upon by the defendants/applicants are not applicable to the facts of the present case, and the same are distinguishable:
(i) The reliance placed by the defendants on Sankar Padam Thapa
(Supra) is misplaced, as the factual matrix of that case is clearly distinguishable from the present matter. Firstly, in the aforementioned case, no reference was made to Section 10 of the CPC. Secondly, unlike the instant case, the main contention therein was whether, in the absence of a Trust being made an accused in a complaint under the NI Act, when a cheque has been issued on behalf of the Trust, the said complaint would be maintainable against the Chairman or a Trustee of the said Trust. To this, the court answered in the affirmative, holding that as a trust does not have a separate legal existence of its own, making it incapable of suing or being sued; therefore, there is no requirement to array the Trust also as an accused.
(ii) Likewise, the defendants’ reliance on Chitivalasa Jute Mills
(Supra) is of no avail, as the facts in that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the aforementioned case, the court categorically held that the cause of action alleged in the two plaints therein referred to the same period and the same transactions. Secondly, it was also observed that the cause of action alleged by one party as a foundation for the relief prayed in one case, is the ground of defence in the other case. In this backdrop, the court held that the issues arising for decision would be substantially common, which is not the position in the present case.
(iii) The decision in Jai Hind Iron Mart (Supra) is equally inapplicable. In the said case, the court found that the subject matter in the two suits viz. Calcutta suit and a Bombay suit is the same contract and the decision in Calcutta suit will effectively put an end to Bombay suit, therefore, the Bombay suit was stayed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. However, in the present case subject matter in the two suits has been found to be distinct.
40. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the present application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
41. List on 05.08.2026. CS(OS) 609/2021, O.A. 42/2022, O.A. 46/2022, CCP(O) 83/2022, I.A. 2102/2022, I.A. 3782/2022, CRL.M.A. 3806/2022, I.A. 5671/2022, I.A. 13838/2022, I.A. 16655/2022, I.A. 17501/2022, I.A. 20241/2022, I.A. 20242/2022, I.A. 20407/2022, I.A. 418/2023, I.A. 15905/2023, I.A. 20381/2023, I.A. 20382/2023, I.A. 21693/2023, I.A. 22386/2023, I.A. 25142/2023, I.A. 245/2024, I.A. 1800/2025, I.A. 22856/2025, I.A. 6258/2026, I.A. 15938/2023 & I.A. 15253/2021
42. Interim order to continue.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J MAY 12, 2026 N.S. ASWAL