Sarvesh Sharma vs Thakur Sri Kishori Ballabh Ji Maharaj ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 427 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sarvesh Sharma vs Thakur Sri Kishori Ballabh Ji Maharaj ... on 1 May, 2025

Author: Neeraj Tiwari

Bench: Neeraj Tiwari

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68701
 
Court No. - 2
 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4399 of 2025
 
Petitioner :- Sarvesh Sharma
 
Respondent :- Thakur Sri Kishori Ballabh Ji Maharaj And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankur Goyal,Arvind Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Present petition has been filed for setting aside the proceeding of S.C.C. Suit No.791 of 2021 (Thakur Sir Kishori Ballabh Ji Maharaj Vs. Sarvesh Sharma) pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judge Small Causes, Mathura.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier plaintiff-respondent has filed Original Suit No. 1474 of 2021 against the petitioner-defendant for possession and demolition of shop, which is still pending for adjudication. Now the same plaintiff-respondent has filed another Suit No.791 of 2021 against petitioner-defendant and other defendants for eviction and arrears of rent of shop in question, which is still pending for adjudication. He firmly submitted that as nature of dispute for both the shops are same, therefore, he has filed application under Section 10 C.P.C. to stay the suit proceedings, which was rejected vide order dated 2.12.2023. Against that he has filed SCC Revision No.11 of 2024 which was also rejected vide order dated 3.10.2024. He firmly submitted that once the dispute is similar in nature, it is required on the part of Court to allow the application filed under Section 10 CPC, therefore order is bad and liable to be set aside.

4. Being confronted by the Court, he fairly informed that tenancy of both the shops are separate. Once this is factual position, plaintiff-respondent has rightly filed two different suits for the reason that judgment of first suit cannot be ipso facto applicable for the vacation of the second shop.

5. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, I found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 1.5.2025

Junaid