Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vishvambhar Bhau More, filed a suit (RCS No.346/2002) for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction regarding land S.No.80/1 admeasuring 7 acres 22 gunthas against the respondents, Ganpati and Vinayak Wagh. During the pendency of this suit, the respondents and their mother filed another suit (RCS No.364/2003) pertaining to the same land and other lands, seeking a declaration that the sale deed in favor of the petitioner was not binding on them. The petitioner filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking stay of his own suit (RCS No.346/2002) on the ground that the subsequent suit involved the same parties and subject matter. The trial court rejected the application on July 18, 2009, holding that the parties and suit property in both suits were different. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard the counsel for both sides. The petitioner's counsel argued that the trial court ought to have stayed the suit and that the first appeal (RCA No.9/2008) arising from the subsequent suit was a continuation thereof. The respondents' counsel supported the impugned order, submitting that the petitioner was protracting the hearing of the suit. The High Court found no ground to interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction, as the impugned order was legal and proper. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Stay of Suit - Section 10 CPC - Same Parties and Subject Matter - The petitioner sought stay of his own suit (RCS No.346/2002) pending disposal of a subsequent suit (RCS No.364/2003) filed by the respondents. The trial court rejected the application holding that the parties and suit property in both suits were different. The High Court upheld the order, finding no ground for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction, and dismissed the petition. (Paras 2-4) B) Civil Procedure - Extraordinary Jurisdiction - Interference with Interlocutory Orders - The High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction to quash the impugned order, as the order was legal and proper. The court noted that the petitioner was protracting the hearing of the suit and that even if no harm would result from a stay, it was not advisable to grant it. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for stay of the earlier suit on the ground that the parties and subject matter in the two suits were not the same.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Impugned order upheld. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 10 CPC
- stay of suit
- same parties and subject matter
- extraordinary jurisdiction
