Court ruled that simultaneous proceedings on the same issue violate statutory provisions, necessitating the stay of the subsequent suit.

JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA J. 

CM-17335-CII-2023

The application for preponing the date of hearing is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

Main case

1. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, whereby, though separate applications under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, preferred at the instance of petitioner and respondent No.2 (defendants No.1 & 2), respectively, for stay of proceedings in Civil Suit No.530-2021, titled as “Krishanjeet Singh vs. Devender Singh etc.” were principally accepted, however, respondent No.1- plaintiff was granted liberty to proceed further with the suit regarding the relief of arrears of rent proportionately to his share from the alleged sub-tenants.

2. Briefly stating, in the present case, previously respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition by way of metes and bounds and delivery of possession of 1/3rd share of the subject property-building constructed upon plot No. 208, Scheme No.3 of Improvement Trust, Auto Market Barwala Road, Hisar against the petitioner-Devender Singh as well as his another brother, namely Vijay (respondent No.2). In the said suit, the defence set-up on behalf of petitioner and respondent No.2 was to the effect that the subject property was rented out by the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 in favour of their brother respondent No.2-Vijay vide rent deed dated 22.11.2010. Even a specific issue No.9-A was also framed with respect to the validity of the said rent deed. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.02.2019 though dismissed the previous suit filed at the instance of respondent No.1, however, went on to record that the petitioner herein and respondent No.2(Vijay) failed to prove the validity of rent deed dated 22.11.2010. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2019, first appeal was preferred at the instance of respondent No.1, whereas, the findings regarding rent deed was assailed in cross-objections by the other- side including the petitioner herein and the same are pending adjudication for 01.09.2025.

3. During pendency of the first appeal, respondent No.1 being plaintiff filed subsequent suit for declaration assailing the validity of rent deed dated 22.11.2010, besides claiming arrears of rent in the subject property from the sub-tenants inducted at the instance of petitioner as well as Vijay; proportionate to his 1/3rd share. In the subsequent suit, the petitioner herein, who happened to be defendant No.2 in the previous suit and Vijay moved separate applications under Section 10 CPC with a prayer for stay of proceedings on the ground that the validity of rent deed dated 22.11.2010 was already under challenge before the First Appellate Court arising out of the first suit, as such, proceedings in the subsequent suit were required to be stayed. Those applications were opposed at the hands of respondent No.1- plaintiff, however, learned trial Court vide order dated 31.03.2023 disposed of the same with the following observation:-

“The former suit for partition filed on behalf of the plaintiff was also dismissed by the Court vide aforesaid judgment. It is the case of the defendants that while the plaintiff has filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment, defendant No. 2 has also filed cross objections in the aforesaid appeal against the findings recorded by the trial court on issue No. 9A in respect of rent note dated 22/11/2010. While the Ld. Appellate Court was still seized of the aforesaid matter, the plaintiff filed the present suit assailing the validity of the aforesaid rent note dated 22/11/2010 before the Court. This Court finds merit in the aforesaid argument advanced on