##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH MISC. PETITION No. 3483 of 2024 RAJKUMAR SINGH Versus MUNNA SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri N. K. Gupta- Senior Advocate with Shri S.D. Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Prakash Chandra Chandil - Advocate for respondents No.1, 6, 7, 8 & 9 as well as the LRs of respondent No.3 Shri Abhishek Singh Bhadoriya - Advocate for the respondents No. 11 and 12.

Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for respondents No.34 & 35.

Shri Dileep Awasthi - Govt. Advocate for respondent No.36/State.

Reserved on : 07.09.2026 Delivered on : 15.09.2026 ORDER With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

The present Misc. Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenges the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambah, District Morena in Case No. 50/23 RCSA, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant No.19 under Section 10 of the CPC seeking stay of the suit filed by the respondents

SVS9 S : iEi i 3 gg g R3 nn n : eiMn0 adg4A t u btAiyr mM e: e VN :A 1 oN6 tD - V SAe eNp rAi - f 2 ie 6 d

No.1 to 9/plaintiffs has been rejected.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially, the petitioner herein-Rajkumar Singh instituted a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.6A/2014 before the learned trial Court in respect of land bearing Survey No.512, rakba 0.21 Aare (आरे), situated at Village Prithvipura, Tehsil Porsa, Pargana Ambah, against the defendants therein seeking a decree of permanent injunction against alienation and raising any construction until the land is partitioned. The said suit was allowed by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 19.12.2015 (Annexure P/4). The first appeal preferred by Rambabu Singh and Vishnudatt against the aforesaid judgment dated 19.12.2015 was allowed by the learned first appellate Court vide judgment dated 15.02.2021 (Annexure P/5) and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was set aside. Against the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal No.431/2021 before this Court, which is pending consideration.

3. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, one of the defendants in the earlier suit, namely, Sadhu Singh, sold a part of the suit property vide sale deed dated 16.12.2022. In the meantime, the respondents No.1 to 9, who were also parties to the earlier suit proceedings, filed a subsequent civil suit bearing RCSA No.50A/2023, wherein the sale deed dated 16.12.2022 has been challenged on the ground that Sadhu Singh had no right or authority to execute the sale deed without there being a partition of the suit land. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the said civil suit, the petitioner has been impleaded as

SVS9 S : iEi i 3 gg g R3 nn n : eiMn0 adg4A t u btAiyr mM e: e VN :A 1 oN6 tD - V SAe eNp rAi - f 2 ie 6 d

defendant No.19.

4. On being noticed in the subsequent suit proceedings, an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking stay of the proceedings of the subsequent suit was filed by the petitioner seeking stay of the proceedings of the subsequent suit on account of pendency of Second Appeal No.431/2021 before this Court, as the subject matter of the earlier suit and the subsequent suit being the same. However, the learned trial Court, without properly appreciating the grounds, vide impugned order dated 24.05.2024 rejected the questioned application preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the subject matter of the suit being different and one of the parties also being different, the provisions of Section 10 of CPC are not attracted.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the judgment by 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 subse