A.K. Shrivastava, J.:-

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/defendants are challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 01.09.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Class II, Amarpatan, District Satna in Civil Suit No. 452-A/2006 by which defendants' application under Section 10 CPC has been rejected.

2-3. A civil suit 94-A/1999 in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Amarpatan was filed by Mst. Dadolwa and Ram Naresh against several defendants including Ramakant who is present plaintiff in the later suit filed by him in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Amarpatan and which has been registered as Civil Suit No. 94-A/99. On bare perusal of the plaint of the earlier suit annexure P/2 this Court finds that in para 5 plaintiff interalia has specifically pleaded that the defendants by keeping the plaintiffs in dark sold 0.40 decimal area of Survey no.506 to 4th defendant Ramakant of that suit vide registered sale deed dated 7.8.1998 for a consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. In the earlier suit the plaintiffs sought following reliefs:-

^^1- ;g fd vkjkth ua- 217 jdck 2-50 fM- dk 1@2 fgLlk tqt jdck 1-25 nf{k.kh fgLlk ua- 213 jdck 0-46 fM- dk 1@2 tqt jdck 23&1@2 nf{k.k rjQ vkjkth ua- 214 jdck 1-76 fM- dk 1@2 88&1@2 fM- mRrj rjQ ua- 215 jdck 0-56 fM- dk 1@2 fgLlk tqt jdck 0-28 fM- iohZ fgLlk ua- jdck 5-04 ,- d 1@2 fgLlk nf{k.k rjQ 2-52 fM- yfyriqj ,oa eqdqUniqj dh vkjkth ua- 506 jdck 0-51 fM- eqrkfcd vuqyXu ^^v] c] l^^ rglhy vejikVu ftyk & lruk e-iz- dh Hkwfe dk foHkktu fd;k tk;A

2- ;g fd nknjlh ds iSjk ua- 1 esa of.kZr vkjkft;krks esa izfroknhx.kksa ls oknhx.kksa dks dCtk n[ky okil fnyk;k tk;A

3- ;g fd nknjlh ds iSjk ua- 1 esa of.kZr Hkwfe dk HkwfeLokeh oknhx.kksa dks ?kksf"kr djrs gq, izfroknh ua- 4 ds3 W.P. 16927/12 gd esa fd;k x;k o;ukek fnukad 7-8-98 eqo- 32]000@& o;eukek oknhx.kksa ds gd esa csvlj ,oa izHkko'kqU; ?kksf"kr fd;k tk;A

4- ;g fd oknhx.kksa dks izfroknhx.kksa ds e/;orhZ ykHk ds :i esa izR;sd o"kZ dk 15]000@& :- rkjh[k nkok nk;jk ls izkIr djus dCtk rd vkfFkZd {kfr fnyk;h tk;A

5- ;g fd oknhx.kksa dks izfroknhx.kksa ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tk;s fd fookfnr vkjkth esa izfroknhx.k Lo;a ,oa muds lg;ksfx;ksa }kjk oknhx.kksa ds dCts n[ky esa dksbZ gLr{ksi u djsaA

6- ;g fd [kpkZ vnkyr oknhx.kksa dks izfroknhx.kksa ls fnyk;k tk;sA

7- ;g fd nhxj nknjlh tks Hkh U;k;ky; mfpr le>s og Hkh oknhx.kksa dks izfroknhx.kksa ls fnyk;k tk;A**

Hence it is luminously clear that several reliefs including the relief to get the sale deed set aside as well as for recovery of the possession of the property including the suit property of the present suit has been sought by the plaintiffs in their suit.

4. On bare perusal of the averments made by the present plaintiff/respondent Ramakant in his plaint (later suit) Annexure P/6, this Court finds that by virtue of the said sale deed executed in the year 1998 for a consideration of Rs.32,000/-, he is seeking decree of injunction in respect to Survey no.506/2, area 0.40 decimal. Hence an application under Section 10 CPC has been filed by the defendants/petitioners to stay the present suit. This application of defendants/petitioners has been rejected by learned trial Court by passing the impugned order. In this manner, this petition has been filed.

5. The contention of Shri P.N. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the defendants/petitioners is that in para 20 of the plaint of the earlier suit, the present petitioners were plaintiffs 1 and 2. In that suit, they had specifically pleaded that by keeping the plaintiffs in dark, defendants 1 to 3 namely Bhura, Vishram and Jeevanlal sold the part of Survey no. 506 to present plaintiff Ramakant (who was defendant no.4 in the earlier suit) although they were not having any possession over it. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiffs vide judgment dated 25.7.2005. On bare perusal of para 3 of the impugned judgment (internal page 4 thereof) this Court finds that the case of plaintiffs has