Geeta and Others vs Gangavva and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, whereby the learned judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 10 CPC, for staying further proceedings in O.S. No. 227/2011 till the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs namely, O.S. No. 9/2015 is finally disposed of.

The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Smt. angavva and Mr. Goudappagouda Veeranagouda Patil respectively, filed a civil suit in 2011, namely O.S. No. 227/2011 for partition and separate possession before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, against the petitioners, and against respondent Nos. 3 to 5. In the said suit, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed 2/4th share in the schedule properties marked as Schedule ''A'', ''B'' and ''C''. In the said claim, they denied the status of petitioner No. 1 as the legally wedded wife of their son, Late Siddanagouda Patil.

Subsequently, as the petitioner No. 1 claims to be the legally wedded wife of Late Siddanagouda Patil, the petitioners filed a civil suit for declaration, namely O.S. No. 9/2015 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi. The petitioners prayed that petitioner No. 1 should be declared as legally wedded wife of Late Siddanagouda Patil, and petitioner No. 2 should be declared as their daughter. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an interim application namely I.A. No. 27 under Section 10 CPC, for staying the proceedings in O.S. No. 227/2011 filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 till the final disposal of the civil suit, namely O.S. No. 9/2015 by the Family Court. However, by order dated 10.08.2015, the learned Judge dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this court.

Mr. S.S. Niranjan, the learned counsel for petitioners, has contended that in the civil suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the legal status of petitioners is in question as they claim that she is not the legally wedded wife of their son. Since the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration with regard to their status as wife and daughter of Late Siddanagouda Patil, it would be no logic of things that the first suit field by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 should be stayed till the declaration is made by the Family Court at Hubballi in the civil suit filed by the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with.

On the other hand, Mr. Naveen Chabrad, the learned counsel for respondents, has vehemently contended that according to Section 10 CPC, only the subsequent suit can be stayed during the pendency of the first suit and not vice-versa. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in praying that the first suit should be stayed during the pendency of the subsequent suit filed by them. Secondly, that in the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the parties have already admitted in their plaint and written statements, that petitioner No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of Late Siddanagouda Patil, and petitioner No. 2 happens to be his daughter. Since there is no dispute about the status of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, no fruitful purpose would be served by staying the civil suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as under :

"10. Stay of suit - No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of established or continued by [the Central Government] and having like jurisdiction, or before [the Supreme Court]."

A bare perusal of the provision clearly reveals that only the subsequent suit can be stayed, but not the previous suit under Section 10 of CPC.

Admittedly, the subsequent suit has been filed by the petitioners and the previous suit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the petitioners are unjustified in praying that the previous suit should be stayed under Section 10 CPC. The said prayer possibly cannot be granted under Section 10 CPC.

In the case of M.V. Rajashekhar Vs. Smt. M.V. Rajamma (deceased by L. Rs.) and Others, , this court has already opined that under the provisions of Section 10 , the previous suit cannot be stayed, and subsequent suit cannot be permitted to be continued. Therefore, the learned judge was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners.

Since there is no dispute with regard to the status of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, no fruitful purpose would be served by staying the proceedings in the previous suit.

Since the learned Judge has given cogent and legally valid reasons, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. For the reasons stated above, this petition is being devoid of merits; it is, hereby, dismissed.