The applicability of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires complete identity of subject matter between suits; overlapping issues do not justify staying subsequent proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Khataniar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. K Jain, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3. No one has appeared for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, though the names of two counsels, namely, Mr. M Kashyap and Mr. S.A. Singh are shown as engaged counsel for the said respondents in the cause list. It also appears that on the last date i.e. on 15.10.2025, Mr. N Bhuyan, learned counsel had appeared on behalf of Mr. M Kashyap, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. However, since when the matter was called on for hearing, no one has appeared for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, this Court decided to proceed ex-parte against the said respondents in this Civil Revision Petition.

2. This Civil Revision Petition (I/O) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner Deepak Sarmah, impugning the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 713/2022 whereby the application filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 of the said Code was allowed and the further proceedings of Title Suit No. 713/2022 along with Misc.(J) Case No. 1116/2022 was stayed.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant revision petition, in brief, are that Title Suit No. 713/2022 has been filed by the present petitioner, claiming the relief of specific performance of agreement to sale dated 05.03.2020, which was executed by the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as the power of attorney holder of present respondent No. 3 for sale of a plot of land, measuring about 4 Kathas, 12 Lechas covered by Dag No. 843 of KP Patta No. 795 under Beltola Moza in Dispur Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup(M), Assam. The present respondent No. 3 is the owner of the said plot of land. In the aforesaid suit, a declaration to the effect that the cancellation deed No. 3109 is null and void was also made. The said deed was executed by the respondent No. 3 on 26.02.2020. An alternative prayer has also been made for refund of the advance consideration amount Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakh), which was paid by the petitioner to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the plaintiff.

4. Prior to filing of the aforesaid Title Suit No. 713/2022, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed another title suit bearing Title Suit No. 258/2022 wherein the relief of declaration that the cancellation deed No. 3109 is null and void as well as for cancellation of the said cancellation deed was prayed for. Thereafter, in Title Suit No. 713/2022, the present respondent No. 3 had filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for stay of the aforesaid suit in view of pendency of Title Suit No. 258/2022 pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge No. 3 was made. The said prayer was made on the ground that the matters in issue in both suits are directly and substantially same and if the subsequent suit is allowed to be proceeded with, there is every likelihood of conflicting judgment on the same subject matter in two suits by two different courts. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed in Title Suit No. 713/2022, the aforesaid suit was stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the petition filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed.

5. Mr. P Khataniar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court had erred while passing the impugned order by staying t