Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) prevents Courts from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, subject matter, and relief.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)

1. The present suit has been preferred by the plaintiff seeking partition of property bearing no.2230, Shanker Gali, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as the `suit property').

2. Vide order dated 22.08.2022, this Court after, taking into account the defendants' plea that a suit being CS DJ No.428/2022, filed by the defendant no.1 herein, seeking partition of the very same property was already pending adjudication before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ- 06), District(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, had granted time to the learned counsel for the plaintiff to make submissions as to how the present suit would be maintainable.

3. Today, he submits that since the value of the share, which the plaintiff is claiming in the suit property is much higher than what is being alleged by the defendants in the partition suit preferred by them before the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff's claim for his share in the suit property would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. He submits that it is only this Court that would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the plaintiff and therefore, contends that the plaintiff was justified in approaching this Court. By placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Des Raj & Ors. v. Bhagat Ram (Dead) By LRs. & Ors., (2007) 9 SCC 641, he submits that there is no bar against the institution of two different suits seeking partition of the same property and therefore, prays that summons be issued in the suit.

4. Having considered the pleas of the parties and perused the record, I find that the plaintiff does not deny that a suit being CS DJ No.428/2022 preferred by the defendant no.1 seeking partition of the very same property is pending consideration before the Court of the learned ADJ-06, District(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It is also admitted by the plaintiff that in the aforesaid suit pending before the learned Trial Court, he is a party defendant and has duly claimed his share in the property before the said Court. Furthermore, vide order dated 06.05.2022, the learned Trial Court has restrained the plaintiff herein from creating any third-party rights qua the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

5. In my view, once a suit seeking exactly the same relief, i.e., partition of the suit property, though filed at the behest of another co-sharer is already pending adjudication before another Court, i.e., the Court of the learned ADJ-06, District (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi it would not be appropriate to entertain the present suit. The plaintiff can and has already claimed his share in the suit property in the aforesaid pending suit before the learned ADJ-06 District(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Merely because the plaintiff apprehends that the value of his share in the suit property would be more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned ADJ, would not be a ground to permit the plaintiff in filing the present suit instead of defending the already pending suit qua the same suit property.

6. The plaintiff's apprehension that in case the plaintiff were to claim his rightful share in the suit property, the learned ADJ may not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit is misplaced. In case of such an eventuality, it will be always open for the plaintiff to move an appropriate application before the learned ADJ in the aforesaid suit seeking rejection of the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. This, however, does not imply that merely on the plaintiff's apprehension that the claim as sought by him would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned ADJ, this Court should permit the continuance of two suits between the same parties seeking the same reliefs.

7. At this stage, it may also be appropriate to refer to Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) which reads as under and provides that no Court ought to conti