Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kabal Singh vs Gopal Chand And Others on 6 May, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
-1-
CR No.2379 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
117 CR No.2379 of 2024 (O&M)
Reserved on : 01.05.2024
Pronounced on : 06.05.2024
Kabal Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Gopal Chand and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. C. M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the defendant
No.1-petitioner challenging the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Trial
Court whereby the application filed by the defendant No.1-petitioner under
Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for stay of the suit was
dismissed.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-
respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction regarding the suit land
falling in Khasra Nos.16//6/1/2 (1-1) and 6//6/1/1 (2-15). The defendant
No.1-petitioner filed an application for stay of the suit under Section 10 CPC
averring that he had earlier filed a civil suit seeking possession against
present plaintiff-respondents qua land bearing Khasra No.16//6/1 (0-6). The
said civil suit was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree
dated 23.02.2016 and the appeal preferred against the said judgment and
decree was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and
decree dated 11.07.2019 and now a regular second appeal filed by the
integrity of this order/judgment
defendant No.1-petitioner was pending in the Hon'ble High Court. It was
submitted that the pendency of the regular second appeal was a continuation
of the earlier civil suit titled 'Kabal Singh Vs. Gopal Chand etc.' and
therefore as the controversy involved in the present suit was directly and
substantially the issue in the earlier suit, the regular second appeal of which
was pending before the Hon'ble High Court, the same operates as a bar to
the continuation of the present suit. The plaintiff-respondents in their reply
to the application submitted that the nature of both the suits was different.
The plaintiff-respondents had filed the present civil suit pertaining to land
measuring 3K-6M comprised in Khasra Nos.16//6/1/2 (1-1) and 6//6/1/1 (2-
15) whereas the earlier civil suit filed by the defendant No.1-petitioner
pertained to land comprised in Khasra No.16//6/1/3 (0-6) and that both the
civil suits pertained to different properties between different parties. The
Trial Court vide order impugned dated 20.02.2024 dismissed the said
application. Hence, the present civil revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1-petitioner would
contend that the issue involved in both the suits was the same and since the
regular second appeal of the earlier civil suit was pending in this Court, the
proceedings in the subsequent civil suit should have been stayed by the Trial
Court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the defendant No.1-petitioner.
5. Section 10 CPC, which is relevant for the purpose, reads as
follows :
"10.Stay of suit - 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
integrity of this order/judgment
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 having 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."
From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision it is evident that where a suit
is instituted in a court to which provisions of the Code apply, it shall not
proceed with the trial of another suit in which the matter in issue is also
directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the
same parties. For application of the provisions of Section 10 of the Code, it
is further required that the Court in which the previous suit is pending is
competent to grant the relief claimed. The use of negative expression in
Section 10 of the Code i.e. "no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit"
makes the provision mandatory and the court in which the subsequent suit
has been filed is prohibited from proceeding with the trial of that suit if the
conditions laid down in Section 10 of the Code are satisfied. The basic
purpose and the underlying object of Section 10 of the Code is to prevent the
courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and
adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of same cause of action,
same subject-matter and the same relief. This is to pin down the plaintiff to
one litigation so as to avoid the possibility of contradictory verdicts by two
integrity of this order/judgment
courts in respect of the same relief and is aimed to protect the defendant
from multiplicity of proceeding [see Aspi Jal and Another vs. Khushroo
Rustom Dadyburjor, (2013) 4 SCC 333].
6. In National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs.
C. Parameshwara [(2005) 2 SCC 256] the Supreme Court held that :
"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
integrity of this order/judgment
suit. The words "directly and substantially in issue" are
used in 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."
7. Viewed in the light of the provision of law and the settled law,
there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Both the civil
suits operate in different spheres. The subject-matter of the two proceedings
is entirely distinct and different. While the first civil suit was for possession
the subsequent civil suit is for permanent injunction. The land involved in
the first civil suit is comprised in Khasra No.16//6/1/3 while the land
involved in the subsequent civil suit is comprised in Khasra Nos.16//6/1/2
and 6//6/1/1. The parties in both the civil suits are also not the same and the
cause of action of the two civil suits is distinct and different. No other point
was argued.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
06.05.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
jk JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment
