AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 7.12.2018 passed by the First Civil
Judge,Class-II, Badnagar, District-Ujjain.
The petitioners have filed a civil suit for declaration of title and declaring the sale deed as void as well as for partition. The respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 &
4 have also filed a civil suit for declaration of title as well as permanent injunction. The respondent No.3 in civil suit No. 141-A/2018, which is the
subsequent suit filed by the petitioner, has filed an application under Section 10 of the CPC for staying the proceedings on the ground that the parties in
both the suits are same and the relief which is claimed in both the suits is substantially identical. The court below vide order dated 7.12.2018 has
allowed the application and stayed the proceedings. Being aggrieved with that order, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, the court below has erred in staying the proceedings of the subsequent suit. He further
submitted that the parties in both the suits are not same. Although the subject matter of the suit is based on the same property, however, the relief,
which is claimed in both the suits are also not identical. In such circumstances, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside. He further relied on
the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Mahant Hanuman Das Guru Swami Purshottam Das Ji vs. Sapna Choudhary and others: reported in
2017(2) M.P.L.C. 73 (M.P.).
Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order passed by the court below and submitted that the court has not committed
any error in allowing the application preferred by the respondent No.3. He further submitted that the parties of the both the suits are same and the
subject matter of both the suits are also identical. In such circumstances, he submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
In the present case, the respondent No.3 has filed an application under Section 10 of the CPC in the filed by the petitioner for staying the
proceedings of the civil suit No.141-A/2018. The court below vide impugned order dated 7.12.2018 has allowed the said application.
The court below by passing the impugned order has observed that in civil suit No. 69-A/2018, which is the suit filed by the respondent No.3, the
parties are substantially identical and the subject matter of the suit is same and the relief which is claimed in both the suits are also identical.
Therefore, the proceedings of the subsequent suit should have been stayed.
In the light of aforesaid, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order passed by the court below. Accordingly, the present petition
stands dismissed as such.