Parties seeking stay of proceedings under Section 10 must demonstrate direct and substantial similarity of issues, and late applications are discouraged, particularly at trial's end.

ORDER :

SANDEEP SHAH, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the defendant petitioner challenging the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Merta, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) was rejected.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the petitioner filed a suit against Riyaj Mohammad and Munna Bhai for cancellation of the decree dated 23.05.2013, the sale deed dated 08.07.2013, and the agreement dated 15.06.2002. The suit, Civil Case No. 135/2013, is pending adjudication before the Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Merta.

3. In the suit, the dispute concerns plot Nos. A-18 and A-19, situated at Sangam Vihar Colony, Merta City, District Nagaur. The plaintiff-petitioner asserted that she purchased the plot through a sale deed dated 04.08.2011 executed by Gulsher Khan, Ajmeri Khan, Nisar Khan, and Salawat Khan. It was also stated that after the sale deed was executed, the petitioner was issued a patta by the Municipal Council.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner discovered that the sellers had executed a power of attorney dated 04.08.2011 in favor of Riyaj Mohammad, who, acting in connivance with the co-respondent Munna Bhai, obtained a compromise decree and executed a sale deed in favor of Munna Bhai. Therefore, the petitioner filed the suit on 23.11.2013 seeking cancellation of the documents mentioned above, along with other reliefs.

5. Subsequently, the respondent Munna Bhai filed a suit against the present petitioner, alleging a prior cause of action and praying for the cancellation of the sale deed executed in favor of the petitioner, as well as the cancellation of the patta. The respondent claimed to be the actual owner based on the decree and the sale deed executed in their favor.

6. In the subsequent case, the trial was nearing conclusion, with the matter fixed for final arguments. At that stage, on 20.01.2025, the petitioner filed an application under Section 10 , stating briefly in one paragraph that the cause of action in both cases was the same and that the parties in both cases were identical.

7. However, the application itself acknowledged that both cases could not be tried together due to the difference in jurisdiction of the concerned courts. Therefore, the respondent prayed that Civil Suit No. 1139/2014 (Munna Bhai v. Sayra Bano & Ors.) be stayed until the final decision in Civil Original Case No. 135/2013 (Sayra Bano v. Riyaj Mohammad & Ors.).

8. The respondent filed a reply to the aforementioned application, raising objections regarding the maintainability of the application at such a belated stage. He further asserted that the parties are not the same, and that the matters are not directly or substantially common in both cases.

9. The learned trial court, after considering the arguments of both the parties, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking a stay of the proceedings. The court observed that the issues involved in both cases are neither directly nor substantially common. Furthermore, it noted that the application under Section 10 was filed at a very belated stage, when the matter was already fixed for final arguments. Aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition has been filed.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same in both suits and that the parties are also common. Therefore, the proceedings in the subsequent suit ought to have been stayed. He further submits that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not prescribe an