MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Narendra Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Saiyed Mehmood Shah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 05.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Ajmer (for brevity "the learned trial Court") in Civil Miscellaneous Case No.33/2007, (48/2004, 21/2004) whereby, an application filed by the petitioners/defendants (for short "the defendants") under Section 10 read with section 151 CPC has been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") filed a suit for declaration wherein, the defendants filed an application under Section 10 read with section 151 CPC seeking stay of the suit on the premise that an earlier suit No.72/2003 between the parties pertaining to selfsame property is pending consideration. The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 05.03.2008.
3. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the defendants submits that since, in both the suits, the parties as well as the suit property are same, the learned trial Court erred in dismissing their application
The court affirmed that distinct issues in separate suits do not warrant a stay under Section 10 CPC, and no error was found in the trial court's dismissal of the application.
The court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition against a trial court's order, finding no error in refusing to frame additional issues post-evidence completion.
The court clarified that under Article 227, supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction, with no grounds found for interference in the trial court's decision regarding th....
Stay of suit – Same issue raised before Trial Court and High Court – Subsequently instituted suit liable to be stayed and since the instant suit filed prior to the suit pending before the High Court,....
A party must provide valid reasons for any delay in filing applications and demonstrate the relevance of evidence to the case, as per the procedural rules under the CPC.
The court upheld the trial Court's discretion in dismissing the application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC, finding it was filed with malafide intent to delay proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.