ORDER

The present Misc. Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vidisha, District Vidisha in RCS A/166/2024 whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Section 10 of the CPC has been rejected.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially, the respondents No.1 and 2 instituted a civil suit bearing Case No.109A/2021 seeking a declaration of ownership and cancellation of entry in the mutation register in respect of the suit land. The ownership was claimed on the basis of a Will. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 30.09.2023 decreed the suit in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2. The petitioner thereafter preferred a regular First Appeal along with an application for grant of stay and vide order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure P/7), the judgment dated 30.09.2023 passed by the trial Court was stayed. During the existing stay granted by the first appellate Court, the petitioner executed a sale deed in respect of some portion of the suit land in favour of respondent No.7-Sanjeev Yadav on 27.06.2024. The first appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.07.2024 passed in RCA No.70/2023 (Annexure P/8), against which, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before this Court bearing S.A. No.2296/2024, wherein, on an application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo and restrained them from creating any third-party right (Annexure P/10).

3. It is argued by the petitioner's counsel that in the meantime, the respondents No.1 and 2 instituted a fresh suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 27.06.2024. On being noticed, the petitioner moved an application under Section 10 of the CPC seeking stay of further proceedings in the subsequent suit filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 on the ground of pendency of S.A. No.2296/2024 before this Court. However, the learned trial Court, without properly appreciating the grounds, vide order dated 17.02.2026, rejected the questioned application preferred by the petitioner.

4. The petitioner's counsel, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dadolwa and another v. Ramakant and Others, (2014) 2 MPLJ 606 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, (2005) 2 SCC 256, submits that the subsequent suit filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 since pertains to the same suit land and the outcome of the pending second appeal would operate as res judicata on the subsequent suit, therefore, the subsequent suit cannot be proceeded with till the final disposal of the second appeal. The learned trial Court had committed an error in rejecting the questioned application only on the ground that one of the party to the subsequent suit (subsequent purchaser) is different and that the subject matter of the subsequent suit is also different. Accordingly, a case for interference is made out.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the provision of Section 10 CPC is attracted only in a case where the subject matter of both the suits is identical. In the instant case, the subject matter of the subsequent suit pertains to the sale deed dated 27.06.2024 and even all the parties are not the same. In view whereof, Section 10 CPC is not attracted. The learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the questioned application. Accordingly, he submits that the petition deserves dismissal. He relies on the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CR No.4254/2022, decided on 10.10.2022.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The scope, object and applicabi