When court can stay subsequent suit?

 The petitioner is the original plaintiff in Reg.Civil Suit No.8/2007 filed by him for partition and possession of the ancestral property. The petitioner is the brother of the respondent.

After the said suit came to be filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.1 herein filed Reg.Civil Suit No.7 of 2009 claiming a declaration in respect of the same property. Admittedly, the respondent is a defendant in the suit filed by the petitioner wherein the respondent no.1 has raised the claim that he is the exclusive owner of the property in question. Since the parties to both the suits are same and since the property in question is common, in my view, the issues arising in both the suits are overlapping. Hence, considering the well settled principles, in so far as Section 10 of C.P.Code are concerned, it would be just and proper to stay the subsequent Reg.Civil Suit No.7 of 2009 filed by the respondent no.1 herein. 

Bombay High Court

Shri Lucky vs Shri Govardhandas Ramgopal ... on 22 June, 2011

Bench: R. M. Savant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                  

 Citation: 2012(2)ALLMR278,2011(5)BOMCR5785

                                       
   CORAM :  R.M.SAVANT, J.

DATED : 22nd June, 2011.

1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard.

2. The above writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 13/1/2011, by which order the application filed by the petitioner invoking Section 10 of the C.P.Code came to be rejected.

3. The petitioner is the original plaintiff in Reg.Civil Suit No.8/2007 filed by him for partition and possession of the ancestral property. The petitioner is the brother of the respondent.

After the said suit came to be filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.1 herein filed Reg.Civil Suit No.7 of 2009 claiming a declaration in respect of the same property. Admittedly, the respondent is a defendant in the suit filed by the petitioner wherein the respondent no.1 has raised the claim that he is the exclusive owner of the property in question. Since the parties to both the suits are same and since the property in question is common, in my view, the issues arising in both the suits are overlapping. Hence, considering the well settled principles, in so far as Section 10 of C.P.Code are concerned, it would be just and proper to stay the subsequent Reg.Civil Suit No.7 of 2009 filed by the respondent no.1 herein. The Trial Court was swayed by the fact that the issues raised in both the suits are different. In my view, considering the scope of both the suits, the reliefs overlap and therefore, the application Exh.18 is required to be allowed and the impugned order dated 13/1/2011 is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Resultantly, the above petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Consequently, hearing of the Reg.Civil Suit No.7 of 2009 is stayed pending Reg.Civil Suit No.8 of 2007. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms with parties to bear their respective costs.

Print Page