IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 10 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6455 of 2025 SMT. KUSUMLATA AND OTHERS Versus SMT.DEEPTI GURU AND OTHERS WITH MISC. PETITION No. 3015 of 2025 SMT. KUSUMLATA AND OTHERS Versus CHANDRA SHEKAHR GURU AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Naveen Dubey - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Abhinesh Soni - Advocate for the caveator.

Shri Hritvik Dixit - Advocate for the respondents.

Shri Abhimanu Singh - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER Since both the present petitions relate to same subject matter and are on identical grounds, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts shall be taken from M.P. No.6455 of 2025.

2. In both the present cases, challenge is made to the order passed by the trial Court, thereby rejecting application under Section 10 CPC filed by the present petitioners, who are defendants before the trial Court.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that two different suits have been filed, one by Smt. Deepti Guru, who is wife of deceased son of Late Manoharlal Guru, and second suit has been filed by Chandra Shekhar Guru, who is son of Late Manoharlal Guru. It is the case of the petitioners that initially a Civil Suit was filed by one Rakesh Kumar Guru, who was the cousin brother of Late Manoharlal Guru seeking the relief of partition of joint family property. In the said suit, late Manoharlal Guru was impleaded as party and upon death of Late Manoharlal Guru, the plaintiffs and defendants in both the suits from which these two petitions have arisen, were impleaded as legal representatives of Late Manoharlal Guru. It is argued that the said suit for partition was dismissed by the trial Court and later on, in an appeal filed against the said judgement in decree of dismissal, the regular civil appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Court against which a second appeal is pending before this Court being S.A. No.857 of 2010, which is pending adjudication, but has not yet been admitted by framing substantial questions of law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in the said second appeal, which is pending against the dismissal of suit filed by Rakesh Kumar Guru, who was cousin brother of Late Manoharlal Guru, substantial questions of law have been proposed, though not yet framed. It is contended that since a suit for partition has already been filed before the trial Court previously and second appeal against the said suit is pending, though not yet admitted, but still it would fall within the purview of Section 10 CPC, because appeal is a continuation of suit and whatever judgement will be passed in the second appeal, would bind the parties.

5. Further reliance is placed on the pedigree/family tree placed on record at page 49 of the petition to contend that all the defendants and plaintiffs in the present case belong to the branch of Late Manoharlal Guru, who was cousin brother of Rakesh Kumar Guru, who had filed the original suit for partition way back in the year 1994 and therefore, at this distance of time, no fresh suit for partition ought to have been entertained by the trial Court and therefore, it was a fit case to postpone the hearing of the suit in terms of Section 10 CPC.

6. Per contra, the prayer is vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs on the ground that the facts in issue in the previous suit are totally different from the facts in issue in the present case. The matter in issue in the previous case was the partition of property, which was said to be succeeded by Rakesh Kumar Guru and Late Manoharlal Guru, from the common ancestor named Beni Prasad Guru. However, in the present case the issue is regarding the devolution of property of Late Manoharlal Guru between his sons and wife. It is contended that the present petitioner No.1 - Kusum Lata, who is wife of Late Manoharlal Guru has managed to get her name entered in all the properti