Page No.# 1/8 vs Susitra Goswami And 5 Ors on 6 March, 2026

                                                                     Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010040132026




                                                              2026:GAU-AS:3355

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : CRP(IO)/61/2026

         AJANTA PHARMA LIMITED
         A COMPANY DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANY ACT, 1956 AND
         HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT AJANTA HOUSE, CHAKOP,
         KANDIVALI (WEST) MUMBAI-4000067, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
         (HR), SRI RATAN ROY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SON OF LATE CHUNI LAL
         ROY, RESIDENT OF SHIVA SATTA APARTMENT,
         FLAT NO. A-113, 3RD FLOOR,
         KALAPAHAR, NEAR ICICI BANK,
         P.S.- FATASIL AMBARI, GUWAHATI-18,
         DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM



         VERSUS

         SUSITRA GOSWAMI AND 5 ORS
         WIFE OF LT. BICHITRA MOHAN GOSWAMI, P/R/O VILL- BARATALI,
         MOUZA- CHAYANI, P.O. AND P.S.- PALASHBARI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM,
         P/R/A JANAKPUR, HOUSE NO. 3, RANGPUR PATH, KAHILIPARA, D.P.I., P.O.-
         KAHILIPARA, PS.- BHAGADATPUR, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP (M),
         ASSAM

         2:SHARMISTHA GOSWAMI
          DAUGHTER OF LT. BICHITRA MOHAN GOSWAMI
          P/R/O VILL- BARATALI
          MOUZA- CHAYANI
          P.O. AND P.S.- PALASHBARI
          DIST- KAMRUP
         ASSAM
          P/R/A JANAKPUR
          HOUSE NO. 3
          RANGPUR PATH
          KAHILIPARA
          D.P.I.
                                                                       Page No.# 2/8

             P.O.- KAHILIPARA
             PS.- BHAGADATPUR
             GUWAHATI
             DIST- KAMRUP (M)
             ASSAM

            3:PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN
             S/O LATE KASHI RAM
             R/O 118
             M.G ROAD
             FANCY BAZAR
             GUWAHATI-1
             P.O AND P.S- FANCY BAZAR
             DIST- KAMRUP (M)
            ASSAM.

            4:SMTI ARUNA DAS
            WIFE OF LATE HARANATH DAS
             R/O VILL- BAZARAPARA
             MOUZA- CHAYANI
             P.O.- PALASHBARI
             DIST- KAMRUP
            ASSAM

            5:HITESH DAS
             SON OF LATE HARANATH DAS
             R/O VILL- BAZARAPARA
             MOUZA- CHAYANI
             P.O.- PALASHBARI
             DIST- KAMRUP
            ASSAM

            6:DWIPEN DAS
             SON OF LATE HARANATH DAS
             R/O VILL- BAZARAPARA
             MOUZA- CHAYANI
             P.O.- PALASHBARI
             DIST- KAMRUP
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K BHUYAN, MR. R DAS,MR. A BHATTACHARJEE,MR. S
A SINGH,MS B HAZARIKA

Advocate for the Respondent : ,
                                                                          Page No.# 3/8

                                 BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                                       ORDER

Date : 06-03-2026

Heard Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. In this revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.06.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup at Amingaon, in Title Suit No. 16/2017.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 06.06.2025, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup at Amingaon ('trial Court', for short) has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the CPC.

4. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the predecessor of the respondents herein, namely, Bichitra Mohan Goswami, had instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 15/2017, arraying the present petitioner as defendant and some others as proforma defendants, praying for declaration and for cancellation of sale deed and other consequential reliefs, and the said suit is pending for disposal before the learned trial court. Mr. Bhuyan also submits that the petitioner herein being the defendant had filed written statement and later on, the petitioner came to know that Bichitra Mohan Goswami/predecessor of the respondents herein had filed another suit, being Title Suit No. 16/2017, in respect of the same suit land and arraying the same defendants, without however, the present petitioner. Then the present petitioners got himself impleaded and filed written statement. Mr. Bhuyan further submits that thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 10 of the CPC, in Title Suit No. 16/2017, for passing an order for staying the proceeding of Title Suit No. 16/2017, as the subsequent suit is between the Page No.# 4/8

same parties and in respect of the same plot of land. But, the learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 06.06.2025, had dismissed the said application by holding that the suits are between the same parties and prima facie appears to be in respect of the same suit land, but the subject matter cannot be said to be the same, and being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

4.1. Mr. Bhuyan further submits that the parties in both the suits, being Title Suit No. 15/2017 and Title Suit No. 16/2017, are same, and both the suits had been filed in respect of the same plot of land and subject matter in both the suits are also the same, i.e. cancellation of two sale deeds, and in that view of the matter, while the parties involved in both the suits are same, the subject matter is same and the plot of land is same, then the Court ought to have invoked Section 10 of the CPC, but, the learned trial Court has erroneously dismissed the same. Under such circumstances, Mr. Bhuyan has contended to allow this petition.

5. Having heard the submission of Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on the record, and also perused the impugned order dated 06.06.2025.

6. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 06.06.2025, is extracted herein below:

"I have perused the plaint of the Title Suit Case No. 15/2017 and Title Suit Case No. 16/17 and on such perusal, it is seen that Title Suit Case No. 15/2017 has been filed for cancellation of sale deed bearing No. 136/13 dated 7.2.2013 and Title Suit Case No. 16/2017 has been filed for cancellation of sale deed bearing No. 2846/2015 dated 29.12.15. Although, the Page No.# 5/8

suit are between the same parties and prima facie appears to be in respect of the same suit land, the subject matter cannot be said to be the same. Both the suit pertains to declaration and cancellation in respect of different sale deed and therefore the instant suit is not fit to Section 10 C.P.C. and the petition stands rejected.

7. It is to be noted here that Section 10 of the CPC deals with stay of suit, which provides that:

"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 in India have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.

Explanation.--The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action."

8. Thus, from a perusal of Section 10 of the CPC, it appears that three key test are required to be satisfied with for invoking the provision of Section 10 are as follows.

(i) Identity of the parties.

(ii) Identity of matter in issue.

(iii) Previously instituted suit.

9. The phrase - 'matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue' has Page No.# 6/8

been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aspi Jal & Anr. vs. Khushroo R. Dadyburjor, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 333, wherein it has been clarified that identity of the matter in issue is determined by applying the test of whether a final decision in the earlier suit would operate as res judicata in the later suit. In holding so, Hon'ble Supreme Court has drawn premises from its earlier decision in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs. C. Parameshwara, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 256, in which it has been held as follows: (SCC pp. 259-60, para 8)

"8. The object underlying Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. The object underlying Section 10 is to avoid two parallel trials on the same issue by two courts and to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit. The language of Section 10 suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in the civil court and it cannot apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute. The object of Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are 'the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue' in the previous instituted suit. The words 'directly and substantially in issue' are used in Page No.# 7/8

contradistinction to the words 'incidentally or collaterally in issue'. Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of the subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical."

10. In the instant case, the parties are identical in both the suits, being Title Suit No. 15/2017 and Title Suit No. 16/17, and the subject matter in both the suits are also same i.e. cancellation of sale deed. But, the cause of action and the issues involved are not identical in both the suits. In Title Suit No. 15/2017, the prayer is for cancellation of sale deed bearing No. 136/13 dated 07.02.2013, whereas in Title Suit Case No. 16/2017, the prayer is for cancellation of sale deed bearing No. 2846/2015 dated 29.12.2015. Thus, though the issues are also identical in nature, yet the cause of action are different that had arisen on two different dates. If, to the given facts and circumstances if we apply the test of whether a final decision in the earlier suit would operate as res judicata in the later suit, then the answer would be clearly no, as the cause of action and the issue involved in Title Suit No. 15/2017 and Title Suit No. 16/17, are completely different and as such, final decision in Title Suit No. 15/2017 would not operate as re-judicata in Title Suit No. 16/17.

11. In that view of the matter, the identity of matter in issue cannot be said to be satisfied with and on such count, this Court is of the view that the provision of Section 10 of the CPC cannot be invoked. Thus, the impugned order dated 06.06.2025, rejecting the petition, under Section 10 of CPC filed by the present petitioner, cannot be said to be suffered from any perversity, requiring interference of this Court, and accordingly, this revision petition stands Page No.# 8/8

dismissed.

12. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that at least the learned trial Court may be directed to hear both the matters together even if such a prayer is not made in this petition.

13. Accordingly, it is provided that the petitioner shall file an application before the learned trial court to that effect and in the event of such a petition being filed by the petitioner herein for trying both the suits together, the learned trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant