Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinita Alias Vinni vs Ninad Sharma And Anr on 16 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050989
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116 2024:PHHC:050989
CR-3912-2014
Date of decision: 16.04.2024
VINITA ALIAS VINNI ..Petitioner
Versus
NINAD SHARMA AND ANR. ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate
and Mr. Rekha Luhach, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Kuldeep, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. In this revision petition, the petitioner assails the correctness of
a composite order passed by the trial Court on 24.03.2014.
2. An application was filed for rejection of the plaint as well as for
staying of the suit.
3. In this revision petition, the challenge is to the correctness of
order passed by the trial Court staying the suit. In fact, two civil suits are
pending, one at Jaipur, whereas, second at Gurugram. The real dispute
appears to be in between the plaintiff-wife and her husband, who is
defendant No.1.
4. In the civil suit filed at Gurugram, defendant No.2 M/s
Yashwant Packaging Pvt. Ltd. is not party to the suit at Jaipur. It has also
been stated that the suit property in a pending suit at Jaipur is different from
the property involved in the civil suit filed at Gurugram. As per Section 10
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the stay of the suit can be ordered only
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050989
2024:PHHC:050989
if the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previous
institute suit litigating between the same parties or between the parties under
whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title.
5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Court has
primarily discussed the prayer made to reject the plaint under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. While concluding, the Court
has also directed that there shall be stay of the suit at Gurugram. There is no
discussion as to how in subsequent suit filed at Gurugram, the property and
the parties are identical.
6. The learned counsel representing the respondent submits that
this Court should discuss the judgment passed by this Court in Gurdit Singh
and others Vs. Amrit Pal, 2011(1) PLR 528. On its careful perusal, it is
evident that the Court examined the distinction between the expression
'strictly and substantially in issue' and 'incidentally and collaterally in
issue'. The facts in Gurdit Singh's case (supra) and the present case are
different.
7. The subject matter was same in Gurdit Singh's case (supra),
which is extracted as under:-
"Merely because in all the suits, sale deeds are different
will not make the subject matter different."
8. In the present case, the property and the parties are not identical
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, part of order dated
24.03.2014, staying the subsequent suit is set aside.
10. With these observations, the present petition is partly allowed.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050989
2024:PHHC:050989
11. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
April 16th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
