Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghunath Prasad Dwivedi vs Phanidra Shekhar Sharma on 20 March, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13809
1 MP-1288-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 20 th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 1288 of 2025
RAGHUNATH PRASAD DWIVEDI AND OTHERS
Versus
PHANIDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jay Kumar Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioners.
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioners/defendants
challenging the impugned order dated 21/2/2025 passed by Third Civil Judge
Junior Division, Sidhi in RCSA No.432/2024, whereby Trial Court has dismissed
petitioners' application under Section 10 of C.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a suit bearing Civil Suit
No.12A/2003 was filed by Angira Prasad and Laxmikant against the present
plaintiffs and defendants, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
18/8/2003. Against which, First Appeal No.15/2004 has been filed by plaintiffs
Angira Prasad and Laxmikant, which is still pending before High Court, therefore,
second suit, which is pending amongst co-defendants / L.Rs. of co-defendants of
previous suit, deserves to be stayed in the light of pending First Appeal
No.15/2004. He submits that although the previous plaintiffs are not party to the
present suit, but the previous judgment operates res judicata amongst the co-
defendants, even though no issue was there in respect of title amongst the co-
defendants. He submits that Trial Court without taking into consideration the
aforesaid aspect of the matter has committed an illegality in dismissing the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13809
2 MP-1288-2025
application. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the miscellaneous
petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
4. Undisputedly, previous suit was filed by Angira Prasad and Laxmikant,
who are not party to the present suit. While passing the impugned order, Trial
Court has observed that previous suit was filed for cancellation of sale deed dated
18/12/1979, whereas instant suit has been filed for declaration of title and
permanent injunction in respect of land bearing survey No.154/2/2. Accordingly,
Trial Court held that the parties as well as subject matter of the suit, both are
different and as such, provisions of Section 10 of C.P.C. cannot be pressed into
service.
5. Upon due consideration of the material available on record including the
previous plaint and judgment and decree passed thereon, this Court does not find
any illegality in the impugned order passed by Trial Court.
6. Resultantly, this miscellaneous petition fails and is hereby dismissed .
7. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Arun*
