The court confirmed that identical issues must exist for a stay under Section 10 of CPC, emphasizing the requirement for unequivocal identity across cause of action, subject matter, and relief.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Ms. Hnunpuii resides in Flat No. B-503, S. B. Apartments, situated opposite Tivoli Garden, Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074 ("the suit property", hereinafter). Mr. Rajender Ambawat ("Ambawat" hereinafter), owns Shop No. 1 on the ground floor of the same apartment block.

2. Alleging that Ambawat was raising illegal and unauthorized construction on the seventh and eighth floors of the suit property, Hnunpuii instituted CS SCJ 165/2020 against Ambawat, also impleading the Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the SHO, PS Mehrauli. Hnunpuii prayed, in her suit, that the allegedly illegal and unauthorized construction, being undertaken by Ambawat on the 7th and 8th floors of the suit property, be directed to be demolished. The prayer clause in the suit read thus:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) passing a decree in the nature of permanent injunction whereby restraining the defendant no. 1 from raising illegal and unauthorized construction of the ongoing construction on the Seventh and Eighth Floor (suit property) clearly shown in the site plan Annexure-A over the Plot bearing No. 370 S.B. Apartments, Khasra No. 619/21, Opposite Tivoli Garden, Chhattarpur, New Delhi-110074, and

(b) Pass a decree in the nature of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 2 and 3 thereby directing the defendant no. 2 to demolish the entire illegal and unauthorized ongoing construction at the seventh and eight Floor of the Plot bearing No. 370 S.B. Apartments, Khasra No. 619/21, Opposite Tivoli Garden, Chhattarpur, New Delhi-110074 and direct the defendant no. 3 to initiate a legal action against the defendant no. 1 as warranted under the law.

(c) Pass any other or further order/direction in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants."

3. MCD, in its written statement filed in response to the aforesaid suit, i.e. CS SCJ 165/2020, alleged that the entire property at 370, S.B. Apartments was unauthorized and booked for demolition.

4. Admittedly taking a cue from the written statement filed by the MCD in CS SCJ 165/2020, instituted by the petitioner against the respondent, the respondent sued the petitioner vide CS SCJ 795/2021, seeking a direction to the MCD to demolish the allegedly illegal construction carried out by the petitioner in Flat No. B-503, S.B. Apartments, in her occupation and for a permanent injunction not to carry out any such illegal construction in future.

5. The suit candidly acknowledged the fact that the provocation for the respondent to sue the petitioner arose from the written statement filed by the MCD in SC SCJ 165/2020, in which the MCD had take a stand that the entire property at 370, S.B. Apartment, was unauthorized.

6. The petitioner moved an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking a stay of trial in CS SCJ 795/2021, instituted by the respondent against the petitioner, asserting that it involved identical and cognate issues, the outcome of which could affect CS SCJ 165/2020, which was already pending.

7. By the impugned order dated 1st June 2022, the learned SCJ has reject