Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrik Singh vs Jaswant Singh on 19 March, 2024
2024:PHHC:039753
C. R. No. 1120 of 2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.130
Case No. : C. R. No. 1120 of 2024
Date of Decision : March 19, 2024
Amrik Singh .... Petitioner
vs.
Jaswant Singh .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Charitr Kadyan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. Challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is to the order dated 07.10.2023 (Annexure P-1),
passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar
(hereinafter referred to as - Trial Court), dismissing application filed by the
petitioner/defendant under Section 10 CPC for stay of proceedings in the
subsequent suit i.e. Civil Suit No.403 of 2018 titled Jaswant Singh vs.
Amrik Singh till final decision of RSA No.2334 of 2014, arising out of
earlier suit i.e. Civil Suit No.56 of 1998, relating to mandatory injunction
ordering petitioner/defendant to restore the common passage from the same
property.
2. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present revision
petition, are that prior to the present suit i.e. Civil Suit No.403 of 2018, filed
by Jaswant Singh, an earlier suit was also filed by Joginder Singh against
MONIKA Hari Singh and others with respect to some different land and on different
2024:PHHC:039753
cause of action. In that suit, there were total nine defendants including Jagat
Singh whose legal representatives were brought on record through him.
Plaintiff was one of his legal heirs. In the earlier suit, prayer was for
mandatory injunction regarding restoration of passage marked by letters
ABCDEF and GHIJKLMN, as detailed in the plaint. In the present suit,
mandatory injunction has been sought to restore the common passage by
way of removal of the gate marked as AB in the site plan and not to create
any such obstruction in the user of the same in future.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the earlier suit
was filed for mandatory injunction, which was decreed. Appeal against the
said judgment and decree was filed and the same was dismissed. Regular
Second Appeal preferred against the order of dismissal is still pending
before this Court, in which notice of motion has been issued. It has further
been submitted that during pendency of appeal, in continuation of
proceedings, now another suit has been filed for permanent mandatory
injunction. Since the subject matter of earlier suit and instant suit is the
same, so, the subsequent suit is required to be stayed till disposal of Regular
Second Appeal, filed in the earlier suit.
4. I have heard submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the case file.
5. The previous suit was filed by Joginder Singh son of Ram Chand
against Hari Singh and others for mandatory injunction for ordering the
defendants to restore the site of rasta, as detailed in the head note of the
plaint, to its original position, by removing all sort of obstructions caused by
them in the shape of construction etc. or for allowing the plaintiff to remove
2024:PHHC:039753
all the obstructions at the costs recoverable from the defendants. In that suit,
petitioner was not sued in personal capacity but through Jagat Singh (since
deceased) being his legal heir. Petitioner Jaswant Singh and other legal heirs
of Jagat Singh were brought on record as legal heir of Jagat Singh. The
instant suit has been filed by Jaswant Singh son of Jagat Singh against the
petitioner Amrik Singh. The parties in both suits are different and the
present suit is for permanent mandatory injunction directing the defendant to
restore the common passage by way of removal of the gate and not to create
any such obstruction in the user of the same in future and in the alternative,
ordering the defendant to restore the common passage marked as ABCD
shown in red colour in the site plan by way of removal of the door fringe
fixed by the defendant at the gate marked as AB in the site plan.
6. In view of the above discussion, since parties in both the suits are
different and the issue involved is also different, there is no need to stay the
proceedings in the subsequent suit. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to
interfere in the well reasoned speaking order passed by the learned Trial
Court.
7. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the
same is hereby dismissed in limine.
8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
March 19, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
