IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :02.07.2025 Mamta Yadav ......Petitioner Versus Balraj and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present : Mr. Mohit, Advocate and Mr. Pavitra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for respondent No.1.

None for respondent No.2 despite service.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J . (Oral) :

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated

12.11.2024 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Fatehabad, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), for stay of civil suit instituted by respondent No.1 was dismissed.

2. A Civil Suit No.76 of 2021 was instituted by the petitioner (Mamta Yadav) against respondent No.1-Balraj and one Jagdish for mandatory injunction, declaration and permanent injunction etc.

3. The case set up was that the plaintiff and her family had sought the help of defendants in obtaining a buffalo loan of Rs.3,50,000/- in lieu of which the defendants got certain few blank papers signed from the plaintiff. Two blank cheques were also signed and were handed over to the defendants. It was claimed that the said blank papers and cheques appeared to have been misused by the defendants and the plaintiff apprehended that some agreement to sell may be set up by them.

4. Few months after the filing of the suit, Balraj-respondent No.1 instituted a Civil Suit No. 495 of 2021 against the present petitioner and one Ajmer for possession by way of specific performance of the land measuring 3 marla 5 sarsai, situated in village Basti Bhiwan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 05.05.2020, executed by Mamta Yadav in favour of Balraj, for a total sale consideration of Rs.14,00,000/- out of which Rs. 13,00,000/- had been obtained as earnest money. It was also stated that the suit land had been mortgaged by Mamta Yadav in favour of defendant No.2 therein i.e. Ajmer.

5. An application under Section 10 CPC (Annexure P-3) was moved by the petitioner for staying the suit filed by respondent No.1. The said application was opposed. By way of the impugned order dated 12.11.2024, the said application was dismissed leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned order is not sustainable. He submits that the suit (Annexure P-1) was initially filed by the petitioner, as a counter blast to which, the suit (Annexure P-2) was filed by respondent No.1. Learned counsel has referred to both plaints. He has submitted that respondent No.1 had put in appearance in the first suit on 17.03.2021 and he instituted the second suit on 09.07.2021. He submits that since the issue involved in the first suit is the same i.e. the validity of the agreement to sell in question, the trial Court should have stayed the trial of the second suit. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon Raj Rani Vs. Madan Lal and others 2021(1) RCR (Civil) 689, National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences Vs. C. Parameshwara 2005(2) SCC 256 and Dheeraj Gupta and another Vs. Ritu Gupta and others 2024 NCPHHC 161623

8. Per contra, Mr. Sandeep Kotla, learned counsel representing respondent No.1 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He submits that the findings recorded in the first suit would not operate as res judicata, for, the nature of both suits, is different and even the parties are different. Learned counsel submits that the under the circumstances, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

10. Section 10 CPC lays down as under:-

“No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in