Under Section 10 CPC, different reliefs sought in suits permit simultaneous proceedings, as the provision aims to prevent concurrent trials of the same matter.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ludhiana, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “CPC”) was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the petition, are that a civil suit (Annexure P-1) was filed by the petitioner for declaration to the effect that the petitioner/plaintiff was the exclusive owner in possession of House No.8808, measuring 210 sq. yds. (fully described in the plaint) situated at Haibowal Kalan, New Vijay Nagar, Street No.2, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) on the basis of family arrangement dated 21.12.1994 entered into between the mother of the plaintiff namely Bharto Devi with the plaintiff and the defendants. Further declaration that Mutation No.43190 with regard to the suit property was illegal, fraudulent and against the family arrangement dated 21.12.1994 and that the entries in the Jamabandi on the basis of Mutation No.43190 were also illegal, null and void. This suit came to be partly decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana. A decree for permanent injunction was passed restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over the suit property or from dispossessing him from the suit property forcibly except by following the due course of law. However, the relief of declaration was declined. An appeal (Annexure P-3) was filed against the said judgment and decree and the same is stated to be pending. Thereafter, the respondents-defendants No.1 and 2 filed a suit for possession of the same property against the present petitioner and defendant No.3 (Raj Kumar). An application (Annexure P-5) under Section 10 CPC was moved by the petitioner for staying of the trial of the subsequent suit i.e. Civil Suit No.748 of 2024 which has been dismissed by way of the impugned order.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable. He submits that if the trial of the suit filed by respondents No.1 and 2 is not stayed, there is likelihood of a contradictory finding being returned by the trial Court, which will affect the decision of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2023.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but find the same to be devoid of merit.

6. Section 10 CPC deals with stay of suit and lays down as under:-

“10. Stay of suit.—

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 in (India) have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of (India) established or continued by and having like jurisdiction, or before [the Supreme Court].

Explanation.—The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in [India] from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action”.

7. The object underlying Section 10 CPC is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction for simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. First of all, the suit filed