Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
Rajbir – Petitioner
Versus
Rishi Pal And Ors. - Respondents
CR-258-2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 07-08-2025
Key Points: - The doctrine of res sub judice mandates a stay on subsequent suits concerning the same material issues as an earlier suit to prevent conflicting judgments (!) (!) (!) - Section 10 CPC stays a suit if the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or their successors (!) (!) - The purpose of Section 10 CPC is to prevent trials on concurrent issues to avoid conflicting decisions; it is a mandatory provision (!) (!) - The test for invoking Section 10 is whether the findings in the earlier suit would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit (!) (!) (!) - In this case, the material issue was possession and validity in partition proceedings, which were directly and substantially involved in both suits; hence the stay of the subsequent suit was upheld (!) (!) - Trial Court’s stay of the later suit was affirmed and the petition was dismissed for lack of merit (!) (!) - The earlier suit involved partition orders and possession issues; the later suit sought decree of permanent injunction based on alleged possession delivered during partition (!) (!) - The decision references Dunlop India Ltd. v. A. A. Rahna & Anr. as part of the precedential framework for Section 10 CPC (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over co-ownership and injunctions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. trial court's analysis of related suits. (Para 4) |
| 3. petitioner's claim for joint trial dismissed. (Para 5) |
| 4. interpretation of section 10 cpc. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. application of res judicata explained. (Para 7) |
| 6. trial court's decision upheld. (Para 11) |
| 7. final decision: petition dismissed. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Jain, J.
Challenge is to the order dated 23.12.2020 [Annexure P-3], passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal whereby application filed by the defendants under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking stay on the subsequent suit filed by the petitioner, claiming the same to be barred by res sub judice, has been allowed.
2. The dispute is between the co-owners. Defendants/respondents filed a suit seeking declaration along with consequential relief of permanent injunction challenging the order dated 30.11.2018 and that 23.07.2019 passed by Defendant No.2-Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade Indri, District Karnal in partition application titled as Rajbir versus Balbir and Others, claiming the same to be illegal, null and void and sought decree of permanent injunction with respect to their possession (hereinafter referred to as the earlier suit’).
3. Subsequently, the instant suit has been filed by the petitioner who was arrayed as defendant in the earlier suit, claiming that he has been handed over the possession of the land pursuant to the partition proceedings and is thus entitled for decree of permanent injunction. In the present suit, application under Section 10 CPC was filed by the defendants, seeking stay on the suit claiming that the material issue involved in the present suit is directly and substantially involved in the earlier suit and thus the present suit should not be allowed to proceed, being barred by res sub judice.
4. Trial Court after considering both the plaints concluded as under:-
“xxx
xxx
xxx
Perusal of case file titled as “Hari Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana’ shows that the suit for declaration along with consequential relief of permanent injunction seeking declaration that orders dated 30.11.2018 and 23.07.2019 passed by defendant No.2 i.e. Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Indri, in partition case bearing no.5/PNT of 2005 titled as Rajbir Vs. Balbir etc., and further proceedings arising out from these orders be declared illegal, null and void etc. Plaintiff also prayed for decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land illegally and unlawfully. In the present suit, State of Haryana, Assistant Collector 2nd Grade and Balbir son of Jaimal have not been impleaded as party to the present suit, though they are parties in the suit titled as “Hari Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana”. Matter, directly and substantially in issue in the present suit is whether during partition proceedings possession was delivered to plaintiff by the authorities at the time of execution of warrant of possession or not. On the other hand, matter directly and substantially in issue in case titled “Hari Singh Vs. State of Harvana’’ is whether partition proceedings are liable to be set-aside and whether as per the partition, possession was delivered to Rajbir during partition proceedings or not, which shows that matter, directly and substantially in issue in both the civil suits, is same.
xxx
xxx
xxx”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order claiming that instead of staying the suit filed by the petitioner, the Court ought to have ordered joint trial of both the suits.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
7. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the counsel for petitioner it will be apt to peruse Section 10 CPC which reads as under:-
Section 10 - Stay of suit.
No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directl
The doctrine of res sub judice mandates a stay on subsequent suits concerning the same material issues as an earlier suit to prevent conflicting judgments.
Section 10 CPC mandates stay of subsequent suit if issues directly/substantially same as prior pending suit between same parties on common property/cause challenging prior decree, preventing parallel....
A subsequent suit cannot be stayed under Section 10 CPC if the issues therein are different from those in the prior suit, even if involving the same property.
A second suit for declaration and permanent injunction is maintainable if it presents a different cause of action, even if a previous partition suit was dismissed for default.
A co-defendant cannot file a counter-claim against another co-defendant in a separate suit over distinct property matters, allowing the autonomous pursuit of relief in such disputes.
Civil Suit - Title of revision petition - Power of superintendence cannot be exercised merely to correct errors of law or fact or just because another view, other than taken by subordinate court is a....
The right to seek partition is inherent and continuous for co-owners; prior dismissal of a partition suit does not bar subsequent suits, provided the parties are different.
Res judicata requires a full trial to establish; dismissing a suit based solely on pleadings without evidence is incorrect.
Stay of suit – Same issue raised before Trial Court and High Court – Subsequently instituted suit liable to be stayed and since the instant suit filed prior to the suit pending before the High Court,....
Under Section 10 CPC, different reliefs sought in suits permit simultaneous proceedings, as the provision aims to prevent concurrent trials of the same matter.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
