The court emphasized the need for addressing the plea of res-subjudice summarily without framing additional issues under Section 10 of the CPC to prevent procedural delays.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.445 of 2017 th Decided on 15 September, 2025 Jagat Ram Negi …Petitioner Versus Smt. Sunila Negi …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Digvijay, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the horder passed by the learned Tribunal, in terms whereof, the gapplication filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Civil iProcedure Code for the stay of the Civil Suit on the ground that another Civil Suit, in which, similar issues were involved was pending adjudication in appeal was dismissed.

2. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent and having perused the plaint of the earlier suit as well as the subsequent suit, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Th.e earlier suit, which has been filed by the respondent herein is for declaration to the effect that Will No.7H/99 dated 24.09.1999 executed by late Sh. Jamna Dass in favour of the plaintiff on 20.09.1999 is a legal, valid and genuine Will, binding upon the parties and Will No.10/2006 dated 21.06.2006 allegedly executed by Sh. Jamna Dass on 20.06.2006 and subsequent mutation No.314 dated 09.0u4.2007 attested on the basis of the said Will be declared as onull and void and as not binding upon the plaintiff. It is furthCer prayed in the earlier suit, that the defendant i.e., the present petitioner herein be restrained from claiming compensation of acquired property of deceased Jamna Dass from Jai Prakash Hydro Power Limited on the basis of the H fictitious and fabricated legal heirs certificate. The subsequent suit that has been filed by same party is for recovery of Rs.4,01,365/- on the ground that the plaintiff i.e., Sunila Negi has instituted a suit for declaration (which has already been referred hereinabove) and that the suit stood dismissed against which she has already filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Court and in the interregnum, with regard to the property of Jamna Dass acquired by M/s J.P. Hydro Power Limited, comp.ensation stood released in favour of the defendant, therefore, the suit was filed that the suit be decreed for the suHm of Rs.4,01,365/- in favour of plaintiff Sunila Negi and against defendant Jagat Singh Negi.

3. During the pendency of subsequent suit, the application was filed under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code by the peutitioner Jagat Singh Negi. In terms of the impugned oorder, learned Trial Court has dismissed the applicaCtion on the ground that as already an issue was framed i.e., issue No.3 as to whether the suit was hit by the provisions of Section 10 of the CPC or not, therefore, any adjudication on the said issue in the application would render the framing of the H issues otiose and the application has been dismissed on this count alone without going into the merits of the application.

4. This Court is of the considered view that there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to frame an issue along with other issue as to whether the suit was hit by the Principles of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code or not.

5. If a party raises the plea of res-subjudice, then, this plea has to be addressed by the learned Court in the lig.ht of the provisions of Section 10 . Section 10 unlike Section 11 comes into picture when there already is a lis going oHn between the parties, in which, the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit.

6. If a party raises the plea of res-subjudice, then, the application has to be decided by the Court in the light of the contents ther