The central legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions for stay under Section 10 CPC must exist for an application for stay of a suit to be granted.

Sat Pal, J. - This petition has been directed against the order dated 2nd April, 1997, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Karnal. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application filed on behalf of co- plaintiff Ishwar Devi (being LR of plaintiff Savitri Devi) under section 151 CPC for stay of the earlier suit filed on 29th Sept. 1995, in which the plaintiffs were respondent Sham Sunder and deceased Savitri Devi. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.

2. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to Order 20, Rule 18, CPC and submits that since the case relates to the partition of the immovable property and the partition of the house in question cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry, the previous suit should be stayed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) by LRs. v. Chandra Kant Shankar Lokhande, 1995(2) RRR 304. He further submits that in any case, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, both the suits should be consolidated. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of this court in Kamla Wati v. Kharaiti Lal, 1993(1) RRR 564.

3. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submits that the application filed by the petitioner before the learned trial court for stay of the suit could lie only under Section 10 CPC and in terms of the said section, the conditions mentioned in that section do not exist in the present case. He submits that neither the parties with regard to the two suits are common and secondly only the subsequent suit could be stayed. He also submits that the matter between two suits is not directly and substantially the same.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court. It is not disputed that the application which has been dismissed by the learned trial court was filed by the petitioner for stay of the earlier suit. Though no provision of law has been mentioned in the application but the only provision provided in the Civil Procedure Code is section 10 for stay of the suit. It is not disputed that the two of the conditions mentioned in Section 10 CPC, i.e., the parties of the two suits are not the same and secondly, the prayer is for stay of the earlier suit and not of the later suit, do not exist in the present case. The application filed by the petitioner for stay of the previous suit is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this short ground. Even otherwise, the learned trial court has given valid reasons for declining the application of the petitioner for stay of the previous suit inasmuch as the petitioner is concerned with regard to the share of the deceased in the suit property. The decision of Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Balwant Lokhande (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, it is yet to be adjudicated by the learned trial court as to whether the suit property can be partitioned conveniently or not.

5. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition, and the same is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that any observation given herein above shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case.

Petition dismissed.