The provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable where the parties in both suits are not the same, nor are they claiming under a party to the previous suit, and the main point to be decided in both suits is different.

1. The following pedigree-table will be helpful in understanding the facts of this case:-

-

2 Sahib Ditta, indisputably, was the owner of the land, measuring 1 Kanal, 3 Marlas, comprised in Khasra No. 62, situate in village Dhanas, in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Sahib Ditta died on 26th September, 1954. On 15th June, 1967 Mehma Singh sold 12 Marlas, out of Khasra No. 62, to Labh Singh and Piara Singh. In October, 1967 the vendees filed a suit against Naurati and six others for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the property sold to them by Mehma Singh. Their allegations were that they were the owners of this property by virtue of the sale effected in their favour by Mehma Singh. The suit was contested by Naurati and the other defendants. She claimed ownership on the ground that the property originally belonged to her father Sahib Ditta and after his death, the said property devolved on her. As regards the other defendants, the case of one of them, namely, Baru son of Dyal (it ought to be Dyal son of Baru) was that he was the tenant of Naurati. So far as the rest were concerned, they said that they had unnecessarily been impleaded as defendants. In December, 1968, this suit was dismissed on the finding that Naurati was the heir of her father Sahib Ditta and the property in dispute had devolved on her after her fathers death and Mehma Singh had nothing to do with it and, consequently, he had no right to sell the same in favour of Labh Singh and Piara Singh. Aggrieved by that decision, the vendees filed an appeal and the same was accepted by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, who held that although the property belonged to Sahib Ditta, but on his death, it devolved on his nephews Mehma Singh and Dhanna in equal shares and his daughter was not his heir regarding this property. Naurati then came to this Court in second appeal (Regular Second Appeal No. 623 of 1970) and that is still pending here.

3. On 7th May, 1970, Mehma Singh brought a suit against Naurati, Dyal son of Baru and one Joginder Singh for possession of the remaining 11 Marlas, out of Khasra No. 62 on the ground that 12 Marlas, out of this very Khasra number, had already been sold by him to Labh Singh and Piara Singh and the remaining 11 Marlas were illegally in possession of Dyal and Joginder Singh, who claimed their rights from Naurati. As he was the real heir of Sahib Ditta, his brother Dhanna having died issue less, the entire land devolved on him.

4. The suit was contested by Naurati as well as the other two defendants. Naurati was claiming ownership of the land and the position of the other two was that they were her tenants. All the defendants objected that the second suit was liable to be stayed under the provisions of Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure, because the matter in issue was also directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit between the same parties.

5. One of the issues framed in the case was whether the suit was liable to be stayed under Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure.

6. By his order dated 28th January, 1971, the trial Judge decided this issue against the defendants and held that the said suit was not liable to be stayed under Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure. Against this order, the present revision petition has been filed by the defendants in the second suit.

7. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure says:

"No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court of India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction or before the Supreme Court.

Explanation. .x x x