The central legal point established is that Section 10 CPC does not apply when the causes of action, parties, and substantial questions/issues in previous suits and subsequent suit are not similar.

Judgment

Mrs. Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana (for short ‘the trial Court’) on 11.01.2024 in Civil Suit No.45762 of 2013 titled as ‘Sharanjit Kaur versus Smt. Parveen Mahal and others’ (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the subsequent Suit’), whereby the application (Annexure P-6) moved by the petitioner-plaintiff (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the plaintiff’) under Section 10 CPC with the prayer to stay the proceedings in the above-said Civil Suit, has been dismissed, she (plaintiff) has chosen to prefer the instant revision-petition to lay challenge to the same.

2. I have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff as well as learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1-Caveator in the present revision-petition, at the preliminary stage and have also perused the file carefully.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff has contended that besides the afore-referred subsequent Suit, two more Civil Suits (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the previous Suits’) had been filed earlier regarding the same property, which is the subject-matter of the subsequent Suit and those previous Suits were adjudicated by the concerned trial Courts and the appeals arisen therefrom, had also been decided by the Lower Appellate Court and this Court and presently, the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed against the judgments rendered in RSA Nos.3257 of 1987 and 351 of 1988, are pending adjudication before Hon’ble the Supreme Court and the same substantial question/issue qua the nature of the suit property, i.e whether it is Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property, is involved in the above-said SLPs and the subsequent Suit and in these circumstances, the proceedings in the subsequent Suit, are liable to be stayed as envisaged under Section 10 CPC. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in Mana Versus Dalel, 1979 AIR (P&H) 39, in support of his contentions.

4. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1-Caveator has argued that even if the suit property/subject-matter is identical in the afore-detailed litigation, even then the fact remains that the previous Suits and the subsequent Suit have arisen out of different causes of action and it being so, the provisions, as contained in Section 10 CPC, would not be applicable to the instant matter.

5. Annexures P-1 and P-2 are the copies of the judgments handed down by the Co-ordinate Bench on 02.05.2011 in RSA No.3257 of 1987, preferred by the plaintiff and RSA No.351 of 1988, filed by Amarjit Singh, the father-in-law of the plaintiff and though a perusal of the same reveals that the question/issue regarding the nature of the suit property, i.e its being the Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property, was involved in the previous Suits but however, a bare reading of Annexure P-3, i.e the copy of the Plaint of the subsequent Suit, shows that besides praying for a decree for declaration qua her ownership over the 3/4th share of the suit property, the plaintiff has also specifically sought the declaration to the effect that the Will, as allegedly executed by her father-in-law and Mutation No.11056 as sanctioned in favour of respondents-defendants No.1 to 5 and the gift-deeds and sale-deeds, executed by the above-said defendants in favour of Manjit Kaur and respondents-defendants No.6 to 12 and the gift-deed as executed by her father-in-law in favour of respondent-defendant No.13, were illegal, null and void.

6. It is worth-while to mention here that in para No.12 in Plaint Annexure P-3, the plaintiff has categorically averred that defendants No.1 to 5 had set-up a forged and fabricated Will in their favour. To add to it, Annexure P-5 is the copy of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench on 01.02.2023, allowing the revision-petition bearing CR No.1078 of 2019, as preferred by the plaintiff to lay challenge to the order passed by the trial Court on 05.12.2018, whereby the application, moved by her fo