Separate trials justified due to different causes of action in civil suits, and no justification for staying proceedings based on pending suits involving similar facts.

( 1 ) BOTH these writ petitions directed against the common order dated 22. 02. 2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangaria in two civil suits No. 66/1998 and No. 65/1998 involving similar facts and common questions were heard together and are taken up for disposal by this common order.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in these writ petitions are that the petitioners herein are defendants in respective Civil Suits for recovery of money filed by the same plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein ). The respective suits having reached the stage of final hearing, the petitioners filed similar nature applications in these suits with the submissions that the plaintiffs have filed three other money recovery suits against the defendant-petitioners and their family members which were pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Sangaria; and while stating the particulars of such civil suits and the fact that in one such suit the petitioners were the defendants and in other suits brother of the petitioners, Om Prakash and his wife Madhu goyal were defendants, the petitioners submitted that substantial amount of money was involved in the said suits but they were still at evidence stage and further proceedings therein were not taken up for want of presiding Officer. The petitioners contended in the application that if decision would be rendered in the present civil suits, it would lead to disclosure of their entire defence that would be utilized by the plaintiffs in the aforesaid other civil suits and would lead to irreparable loss to the defendants and their family members. On such grounds it was prayed that the proceedings in the present suits be stayed till evidence was recorded in the aforesaid three other civil suits. The application was duly replied by the plaintiffs pointing out that the different civil suits were based on different causes of action and there was no such issue which was directly and substantially in issue between the parties in any previously instituted suits for which the proceedings in the present civil suits were required to be stayed. It was also pointed out that one civil suit against manoj, another brother of the defendant had already been decreed by the same court.

( 3 ) THE learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), sangaria, after hearing the parties was clearly of opinion that there was no reason or justification for staying the proceedings in the present civil suits and found that the applications were not bonafide and were moved only to unnecessarily delay the proceedings. The applications were accordingly rejected by the impugned order dated 22. 02. 2006 (Annex. 5) on 500/- rupees costs each.

( 4 ) ASSAILING the order dated 22. 02. 2006 it has been contended in these writ petitions on behalf of the defendant-petitioners that even if the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) do not apply to the applications moved by the petitioners, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and multiple litigations having been foisted upon the petitioners and their family by the plaintiffs, in order to prevent the plaintiffs from taking undue advantage of the submissions and defence of the petitioners in the course of the present civil suits in other litigation, it was expedient in the interest of justice that the proceedings in the present suits were stayed till trial was completed in the other suits of similar nature. It was further submitted that having regard to the peculiar facts that money recovery suits are sought to be prosecuted by the same plaintiffs in relation to the transactions allegedly entered into during the life-time of mohan Lal, husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and father of the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4, in view of the similarity of allegations and so also similarity of the nature of defence of the petitioners and their family members, the applications were submitted bonafide for stay of the proceedings par