SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 16711

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Sounthar, J
C.Mohandas – Appellant
Versus
Prasanna – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition | CMP.No.5281 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: E.K.Kumaresan

Section 10 of CPC cannot be invoked if the parties involved in the subsequent suit were not parties in the earlier suit.

Headnote:{'statute_analysis': 'This judgment involves an interpretation of Section 10 of CPC concerning the application for stay of a subsequent suit pending the outcome of an earlier appeal.', 'facts_of_the_case': 'The petitioner challenges the dismissal of an application for stay in a suit concerning property and injunction filed by the first respondent against him. The first respondent was not a party to the earlier suit which had been decreed.', 'findings_of_court': 'The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to invoke Section 10 of CPC since the first respondent was not a party in the earlier proceedings.', 'issues': "The main issue is whether the petitioner's appeal can be stayed due to findings in the earlier suit.", 'ratio_decidendi': 'The Court determined that since the first respondent was not a party to the prior suit, the conditions for staying the subsequent suit under Section 10 were not satisfied.', 'result': 'Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed.'}

Table of Content
1. court found that the dismissal of the application was justified. (Para 2)
2. details regarding the parties involved and the nature of the suits. (Para 3)

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of the suit under Section 10 of CPC.

2. The petitioner herein and the first respondent are husband and wife.

The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner and the second respondent seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from physically or mentally harassing her or evicting her from the suit property. She also sought for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner and the second respondent to execute appropriate documents in respect of the suit property which is a residential house in favour of her and her daughters. The present suit filed by the first respondent is a subsequent suit. Earlier, the second respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner in OS.No.9137 of 2019 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai seeking specific performance of sale agreement in respect of the suit property. The earlier suit was filed by the second respondent only against the petitioner. The suit was decreed and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same is pending before this Court.

3. In the pending appeal, the first respondent herein filed an impleading application and the same is pending for filing of counter by the respondents therein. In these circumstances, the present application has been filed by the petitioner/husband seeking stay of the second suit filed by the first respondent/wife on the ground that findings in pending first appeal will have a bearing on the outcome of the present suit. Admittedly, the first respondent/present plaintiff was not added as a party in the earlier suit and the said suit was already disposed of. Now, appeal is pending before the first appellate court. In the said appeal, the first respondent filed only impleading application and the same is not yet ordered. Therefore, as on today, the first respondent/present plaintiff is not a party in the said appeal proceedings. When the first respondent/present plaintiff is not a party in the earlier suit and also pending first appeal, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke Section 10 of CPC. Therefore, I do not find any error in the final conclusion reached by the trial court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top