Ramvishal Sonkar S/o Late Bhaddu Sonkar Aged About 72 Years R/o Shankar Para Lakhe v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:4602 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 86 of 2025 Ramvishal Sonkar S/o Late Bhaddu Sonkar Aged About 72 Years R/o Shankar Para Lakhe Nagar Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Mrs. Santoshi Bai Sonkar W/o Late Ramkrishna Sonkar Aged About 45 Years R/o Tiranga Chowk Sonkar Para Kushalpur Raipur Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Rahul Sonkar S/o Late Ramkrishna Sonkar Aged About 27 Years R/o Tiranga Chowk Sonkar Para Kushalpur Raipur Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Akash Sonkar S/o Late Ramkrishna Sonkar Aged About 24 Years R/o Tiranga Chowk Sonkar Para Kushalpur Raipur Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 4. Mrs. Sukhiya Bai W/o Rameshwar Sonkar Aged About 58 Years R/o Tillu Chowk , Kakhenagar, Raipur (C.G.) R/o Tiranga Chowk Sonkar Para Kushalpur Raipur Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 5. Mrs. Shiv Kumari Sonkar W/o Late Narad Lal Sonkar Aged About 59 Years R/o Shankarpara, Lakhenagar Raipur, (C.G.), R/o Tiranga Chowk Sonkar Para Kushalpur Raipur Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 6. Mrs. Meena Kumari W/o Rajkumar Sonkar Aged About 46 Years R/o Sonkar Para, Simga Tehsil Simga, District Raipur (C.G.) R/o Tiranga Chowk Sonkar Para Kushalpur Raipur Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 7. Ramcharan Sonkar S/o Atmaram Sonkar Aged About 54 Years R/o Tiranga Chowk Sonkar Para Kushalpur Raipur Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 8. Vijay Kumar Sonkar S/o Late Atmaram Sonkar Aged About 51 Years R/o Tiranga Chowk Sonkar Para Kushalpur Raipur Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 9. Mrs Draupadi Bai W/o Late Mangal Sonkar Aged About 51 Years R/o Tiranga Chowk Sonkar Para Kushalpur Raipur Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 10. Avinash Sonkar S/o Late Mangal Sonkar Aged About 36 Years R/o Tiranga Chowk Sonkar Para Kushalpur Raipur Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 11. Anurag Sonkar S/o Late Mangal Sonkar Aged About 45 Years R/o Tiranga Chowk Sonkar Para Kushalpur Raipur Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 12. Mrs. Anamika Sonkar D/o Late Mangal Sonkar Aged About 34 Years R/o Tiranga Chowk Sonkar Para Kushalpur Raipur Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 13. Mrs. Vimla W/o Shatrughan Sonkar R/o Sonkar Para Kushalpur Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Cg 14. Mrs Kumari Bai W/o Baldau Sonkar R/o Behind Police Station, Arang Tehsil, Arang District Raipur Cg 15. Pushpa Sonkar W/o Narayan Sonkar R/o Bazar Chowk Kumhari Tehsil Bhilai District Durg Cg 16. Mrs. Laxmi Sonkar W/o Chudamani Sonkar R/o Village Revali Tehsil Abhanpur District Raipur Cg 17. Mrs. Ramshila Sonkar W/o Panchram /sonkar R/o Lohar Chowk Bhatagaon, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Cg
Legal Reasoning
18. Mrs, Anita Shrivas W/o Rajesh Shrivas, R/o Opposite Chandu Kirana Stores, Loly Chowk Purani Basti Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Cg 19. Neeta Shrivas Father Gaya Prasad Shrivas R/o Sunder Nagar Raipur Cg Other Address Address House Number Lig 1134, Sector 7 Raipur Housing Board Colony Saddu Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Cg 20. State Of Chhattisgarh Collector Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For State/ Respondent No. 20 : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 27/01/2025 Heard on admission. 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Xth Additional Judge to Ist Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur 3 (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 138-A/2023 dated 05.11.2024 whereby the application moved by petitioner under Section 10 of CPC has been rejected. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No. 3 submits that earlier Civil Suit No. 536-A/2022 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to lands bearing Khasra Nos. 1395/1, 1349 and 1320/1 ad-measuring 0.19 acre, 0.71 acre and 0.10 acre, respectively situated at P.H. No. 106, Village Kushalpur Tehsil Raipur-1, District Raipur (C.G.) inter-alia on the ground that the suit property is the ancestral property. He further submits that the plaintiffs filed a subsequent civil suit claiming a similar relief pertaining to the same Khasra Nos. by filing Civil Suit No. 138-A/2023. He contends that the plaintiffs ought to have sought relief in one suit and the subsequent suit is not maintainable, therefore, an application under Section 10 of CPC was moved but the learned trial Court rejected the same which is contrary to the provisions of Section 10 of CPC. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the defendants in both cases are different and the date of cause of action is also different, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material/documents available on record. 5) The following conditions must be satisfied for the application of Section 10 of C.P.C. which reads as under:- 1. There must be two suits, one that is already instituted and the other subsequently instituted; 2. The subject matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially the same as in the 4 previous suit; 3. The two suits must be filed on behalf of the same parties or their representatives; 4. The earlier instituted suit must be pending in the same court in which the subsequent suit is brought or in any other court in India or any court outside the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government or before the Supreme Court; 5. The court in which the previous suit is instituted must be competent and have the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in the subsequent suit; 6. The parties must be litigating under the same title in both the suits. 6) In National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs C. Parameshwara, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 256, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the test for applicability of Section 10 of C.P.C. held in para- 8 as under:- 8. The object underlying Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. The object underlying Section 10 is to avoid two parallel trials on the same issue by two courts and to avoid recoding of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit. The language of Section 10 suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in the civil court and it cannot apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute. The object of Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical. The Key words in Section 10 are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in the previous instituted suit. The words “directly and substantially in issue” are used in contradistinction to the words “incidentally or collaterally in issue”. Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the 5 matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of the subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical. 7) Now coming to the facts of the present case in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of C. Parmeshwara (supra), it is apparent that:- (i) there are two suits, the first one was instituted by the plaintiffs on 05.12.2022 claiming relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction and the subsequent suit was instituted on 01.04.2023; (ii) the relief sought in both civil suits is almost similar and the suit property is also similar but the parties to the suit are different. In the first suit, the defendants are - 1. Manoj Kumar Tandon, 2. Ramvishal Sonkar and 3. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raipur; whereas in the second suit, the defendants are - 1. Anita Shriwas, 2. Neeta Shriwas, 3. Ramvishal Sonkar and 4. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raipur. (iii) both suits are pending before the same Court. 8) Evidently, in the first suit, the date of cause of action was August, 2022 whereas in the subsequent suit, the date of cause of action was March, 2023, thus, the issues involved are slightly different. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of C. Parmeshwara (supra), no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya