When court should 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.   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 
WRIT PETITION NBO.1218 OF 2011.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
            Shri Lucky s/o Hastimal Chandak,
  
VERSUS...
                                        
                 CORAM :  R.M.SAVANT, J.
DATED  :  22nd June,  2011.
Citation;2011 (5) Bom C R785

     
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 
3.
invoking Section 10 of the C.P.Code came to be rejected.
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