Section 10 of the CPC applies only when the issues in both suits are identical; distinct issues do not warrant a stay.

CAV ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.06.2019 passed on I.A.No.7 filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, in O.S.No.26085/2009, seeking stay of the further proceedings of O.S.No.26085/2009 pending disposal of O.S.No.1414/2008 on the file of the City Civil Judge (CCH-53) at Bengaluru, which came to be rejected.

2. Heard.

3. Sri.Narasimha Prasad S.D., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 has filed O.S.No.26085/2009 claiming to be the second wife of late Sudarshan Chavan and in the said suit, the petitioner herein has filed detailed written statement denying that the respondent No.1 is the wife of late Sudarshan Chavan. The issues in the said suit as well as the earlier suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.1414/2008 are substantially one and the same. It is submitted that unless the status of the respondent No.1 is decided in the earlier suit filed by the petitioner, the later suit cannot be proceeded. If the later suit filed by the respondent No.1 is allowed to proceed, there may be divergent finding. Hence, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application for stay of the later suit filed by the respondent No.1. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner solely on the ground that the issues were framed in the year 2011, the trial has already commenced and the present application is filed belatedly and the suit is 10 years old. Such a finding of the Trial Court is perverse as the issues involved in both the suits are substantially same. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES Vs. C.PARAMESHWARA , [(2005) 2 SCC 256]. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by staying the further proceedings in the suit instituted by the respondent No.1 till the disposal of O.S.No.1414/2008.

4. Per contra, Sri.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the nature of both the suits between the parties is altogether different. The prayer in the suit of the petitioner is for declaration, delivery of vacant possession and mandatory injunction and the suit filed by the respondent No.1 is for mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos.3 and 4-BBMP officials to cancel the khata effected in favour of the petitioner and other prayers. Hence, the issues involved in both the suits are distinct. It is also submitted that the suit schedule properties in both the suits are different. Hence, the scope of both the suits are distinct and is required to be adjudicated independently. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material available on record.

6. The pleading and material available on record indicates that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.1414/2008 against the respondent No.1 and the BBMP seeking prayer to declare that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, direct the respondent No.1 to handover vacant possession of the property in favour of the petitioner and mandatory injunction directing the respondent -BBMP to effect the khata of the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner. The suit schedule property in the aforesaid suit is property bearing No.334, 'Chitrakoot', East Road, 8^th Cross, Lakshmi Road, Ward No.70, Shanthinagara, Bengaluru. Admittedly, later the respondent No.1 herein has filed O.S.No.26085/2009 against the petiti