IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established is that when two suits involve the same parties, property, and reliefs, and the jurisdictional issue is pending, the subsequent suit may be stayed until the disposal of the earlier suit.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. The revisional application arises out of an order dated August 09, 2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court at Baruipur in Title Suit No.312 of 2023.

2. By the order impugned, the learned court rejected an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by petitioner/defendant in the suit. By the same order, an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also rejected. The parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of their physical possession, nature and character of the suit property, till disposal of the suit.

3. Only the first portion of the order impugned, by which an application for stay was rejected, is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Mr. Gautam Mitra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner/defendant submits that Title Suit No. 312 of 2023 was filed by the Opposite party/defendant no.1 of Title Suit No.683 of 2023 and its authorized signatory by suppressing the pendency of the earlier suit. Title Suit No.683 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner against the opposite party before the learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta. In the said suit, an order of ad interim injunction was passed on April 03, 2023. The defendant and its men and agents were restrained from making any construction or alternation or causing any damage to the suit property. The opposite party is the defendant in the Title Suit No.683 of 2023.

5. The said learned court, by the order dated April 05, 2023, had appointed a learned Advocate commissioner for holding inspection of the property, on the prayer of the petitioner. It was alleged by the petitioner that the opposite party had removed the entrance doors, the frames of the doors and windows and had damaged the property. By an order dated May 04, 2023, the petitioner was also permitted to fix two entrance doors and windows. The learned Advocate commissioner was further directed to keep the suit premises under lock and key. The matter was also informed to the local police station.

6. Title Suit No.312 of 2023, was filed by the opposite party before the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Baruipur, on or about May 17, 2023. The said suit was for declaration and injunction. The plaint in the second suit did not disclose anything about the pendency of the earlier suit.

7. In Title Suit No.312 of 2023, an ad interim order of injunction was passed on May 19, 2023. Both the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of physical possession, nature and character of the property.

8. The petitioner entered appearance in the suit and filed and application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also an application of stay of the suit. As the said application had been fixed after a long gap, such order was challenged before this Court in C.O.2369 of 2023.

C.O. 2369 of 2023 was disposed of by this Court. By an order dated July 26, 2023, this Court directed the learned trial court to dispose of the applications filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by treating the same as an objection to the application for temporary injunction and also to dispose of the application under Section 10 of the Code, within August 10, 2023.

9. The order impugned has been passed in Title Suit No. 312 of 2023, in terms of the direction of this Court.

10. According to Mr. Mitra, the prayers in the earlier suit and the prayers in the second suit would indicate that both the parties prayed for declaration that the opposite party was a licensee in respect of the suit premises. A direction restraining either party from interfering with the possession of the other party and also from causing any damage to the suit property, was also prayed. Under such circumstance, when the parties were the same, the property involved was the same and the prayers and reliefs prayed for were also the same, the later suit should have been stayed b