The fundamental test for the application of Section 10 of the CPC is the complete identity of subject matter in both suits, and the reliefs sought, cause of action, and subject matter must be identical for the application of Section 10. The court's decision is based on the importance of complete identity of subject matter in both suits for the application of Section 10 of the CPC.

ORDER

1. The petitioner is the sister of the respondent. The impugned order, dated 5th August 2022, has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in Suit Civ DJ 699/2021, on an application filed by the petitioner, as the defendant in the suit, under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The application stands rejected.

Facts

2. Civ DJ 699/2021, filed by the respondent against the petitioner, sought (i) a decree of possession, evicting the petitioner from the property situated at B-404, Lakeview Apartments, Paschim Vihar, Delhi ("the suit property") and restoration of possession of the suit property to the respondent, (ii) unauthorized occupation charges/mesne profits along with interest and (iii) a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner from creating any third party rights in respect of the suit property.

3. A brief pricis of the recitals in the plaint may be provided thus. The suit property was allotted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to K K Vedi, the father of the parties in this petition and the husband of Sudershan Vedi. K K Vedi expired on 2nd May 2005. During his lifetime, K K Vedi executed a registered Sale Deed dated 22nd November 2003, whereby the suit property was sold by him to the respondent Tarun Vedi. The respondent Tarun Vedi, thereby, became the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property. He, however, allowed his mother Sudershan Vedi to continue to reside in the suit property on a gratuitous basis. Sudershan Vedi expired on 24th September 2019. At that time, the respondent Tarun Vedi was living abroad. He returned to India to perform the last rites of his mother Sudershan Vedi and found that the petitioner Amita Vashisht and her husband S.K. Vashisht were obstructing ingress, by the respondent, into the suit property. The respondent also lodged a police complaint in that regard. Claiming that, in view of the registered Sale Deed dated 22nd November 2003 executed by K K Vedi in favour of the respondent, no person other than the respondent had any right over the suit property, the respondent instituted the aforesaid CS DJ 699/2021 against the petitioner Amita Vashisht, seeking the reliefs already set out in para 2 supra.

4. The petitioner Amita Vashisht moved an application, under Section 10 of the CPC, in the present suit CS DJ 699/2021, seeking stay of trial in the suit. The application was predicated on an earlier suit CS SCJ 612321/2016 (Sudershan Vedi v. Tarun Vedi), instituted by Sudershan Vedi (the mother of the parties) against the respondent Tarun Vedi.

5. The petitioner is not a party in the said suit, though, consequent on the demise of Sudershan Vedi, the petitioner moved an application under Order XXII of the CPC, seeking to be substituted in her place. Learned Counsel are ad idem that the said application is yet to be allowed.

6. CS SCJ 612321/2016, as instituted by Sudershan Vedi against the respondent Tarun Vedi, sought (i) a declaration that the Sale Deed dated 22 November 2003, on which the respondent places reliance in CS DJ 699/2021, was void ab initio, (ii) a restraint against the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) registering any further transaction in respect of the suit property, on the basis of the said Sale Deed and (iii) a restraint against Tarun Vedi creating any third party interest in respect of the suit property.

7. The plaint in CS SCJ 612321/2016 asserted thus.

7.1. Sudershan Vedi was appointed by her husband K K Vedi, vide General Power of Attorney dated 25th May 2000, as his lawful attorney to deal with, inter alia, the suit property. Additionally, by Will dated 9th May 2000, K.K. Vedi bequeathed all his property, movable as well as immovable, in favour of Sudershan Vedi. Resultantly, on the death of K.K. Vedi, on 2nd May 2005, Sudershan Vedi became the sole and exclusive owner of his movable and immovable properties, including the suit property.

7.2. Sudershan Vedi, as the GPA holder of K.K. Ved