IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

237 CR-814-2025(O&M)

Date of decision: 25.02.2026 Janmit Singh Chadda ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Kanwaljit Singh Chadda & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate Mr. Sankalp Sharma, Advocate Mr. Piyush Kumar, Advocate for the respondents No.1, 3 and 4.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision petition has been filed by the defendant No.1 against the order dated 07.01.2025 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 CPC for staying the proceedings of the Civil Suit no.92 of 2019, has been disposed of.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 4 herein, had filed a Civil Suit no.92 dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure P2) for possession of the suit house as described in the plaint against the petitioner/defendant No.1 and defendant No.2/pro- forma respondent No.5 herein. The petitioner had filed written statement dated 29.04.2019 (Annexure P3) in which the petitioner had duly mentioned that the issue of ownership of the suit house is pending consideration before this Court by way of RSA No.4838 of 2018 titled as “Janmit Singh Vs. Kanwaljit Singh & Others”. Learned counsel submits that the said RSA emanates from a previous Civil Suit No.155 of 2005 filed by the petitioner against the present respondents with regard to the ownership of the house in question. It is submitted that previously Jagjit Singh (father of the petitioner and the respondents) was owner of the house in question. The petitioner had filed said previous Civil Suit No.155 of 2005 claiming ownership rights in the suit house by virtue of succession; whereas the respondents are claiming title to the suit property on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by Jagjit Singh. However, Jagjit Singh was a patient of Manic-Depressive Psychosis; and was on regular medical treatment. He had executed as many as seven Wills. Learned counsel vehemently contends that as the issue of ownership of the suit house is still pending consideration before this Court by way of aforesaid RSA-4838-2018, there was no cause or occasion for the respondents to have instituted the instant Civil Suit (Annexure P2) for possession of the suit house. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner had duly mentioned in his written statement to the present suit that the RSA regarding ownership was pending before this Court, it was incumbent upon the learned Civil Judge to have stayed further proceedings in the present Civil Suit in terms of Section 10 of the CPC. Learned counsel argues that the result of the RSA will determine whether the petitioner has rights in the suit house or not. Admittedly, petitioner has been in possession of the suit property for the past several years. As such, the pending RSA has an incontrovertible bearing on the fate of the present Civil Suit. Therefore, application of the petitioner could not have been disposed of; and the Civil Suit 92 of 2019 ought to have been stayed. Learned Counsel argues that the scope of Section 10 CPC is that subject matter of both the Suits should be the same and the parties should be the same. Admittedly, in the present case, the subject matter in both the suits is the house question. It is argued that in case the proceedings in the present Civil Suit 92 of 2019 are not stayed, it will lead to proliferation of litigation. Besides, the said provision has been promulgated to avoid conflicting judgments. Therefore, though through the written statement it had been brought to the notice of the Civil Court that RSA is pending yet the present Civil Suit was not stayed. Even no issue was framed by the learned trial Court to the effect that the second/present Civil Suit is barred under Section 10. Clearly, on the date of framing of issues, the le