Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
B. V. NAGARATHNA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Usha – Appellant
Versus
Shahjad Bi @ Sejad – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in case W.P. No. 7924/2016, by which the order of the Trial Court dated 20.10.2016 passed on an application filed under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) was allowed and the said order being affirmed by the High Court, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
3. It is noted from the Office Report that the respondents, particularly the contesting respondent No. 6 herein, has been served but there is no representation on behalf of the said respondent. In these circumstances we have heard learned counsel for the appellants only.
4. Briefly stated, the facts are that respondent No. 6 has filed Civil Suit No. 15A/2011 seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the sale deed dated 12.12.2008, which is stated to have been allegedly executed by him, is null and void. During the pendency of the said suit, the appellants herein filed Civil Suit No. 158A/2013 seeking eviction
Section 10 of the CPC prevents concurrent trials of suits with identical issues; distinct issues allow separate proceedings.
The court clarified that distinct issues in separate suits do not warrant a stay under Section 10 of the CPC, emphasizing the need for identity in both the matter in issue and the relief sought.
A co-defendant cannot file a counter-claim against another co-defendant in a separate suit over distinct property matters, allowing the autonomous pursuit of relief in such disputes.
Section 10 CPC applies to separate civil suits and does not extend to applications in pending suits. The Rent Act provides a special procedure for eviction proceedings and does not require adjudicati....
Parties seeking stay of proceedings under Section 10 must demonstrate direct and substantial similarity of issues, and late applications are discouraged, particularly at trial's end.
Section 10 CPC applies only when issues in both suits are directly and substantially the same; otherwise, separate proceedings may continue without conflict.
Stay of suit – For application of Section 10 of CPC, matter in issue in both suits have to be directly and substantially in issue in previous suit.
Under Section 10 of CPC, a previously instituted suit cannot be stayed if a subsequent suit filed between the same parties, in respect of the same subject matter, is pending before the same court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article