Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh v. 1. Bhonduram S/o Late Anuksai, Aged About 56 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Poprega
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.12 10:54:34 +0530 2025:CGHC:45784 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 520 of 2018 Setram S/o Kurthi Kanwar, Aged About 52 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Poprega, P.S. And Tahsil Batouli, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Civil And Revenue District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Bhonduram S/o Late Anuksai, Aged About 56 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Poprega, P.S. And Tahsil Batouli, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Civil And Revenue District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Magheram S/o Late Anuksai, Aged About 53 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Poprega, P.S. And Tahsil Batouli, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Civil And Revenue District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. (Deleted) Sundarram (Died) (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 26-03- 2025)
Legal Reasoning
4. (Deleted) Smt. Sukwaro Bai (Died) (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 26- 03-2025) 5. Sahuram S/o Kurthi Kanwar, Aged About 47 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Poprega, P.S. And Tahsil Batouli, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Civil And Revenue District Surguja Chhattisgarh.........(Defendant No. 2), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh)..........(Defendant No.3), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 7. Smt. Manmatiya W/o Late Ramdev Kanwar, Aged About 49 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Jhargavan, P.S. And Tahsil Batouli, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Civil And Revenue District Surguja Chhattisgarh...........(Defendant No. 4), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondents No. 1, 2 & 7 : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate 2 For State/Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09. 09.2025 1. The petitioner/defendant No. 1 has challenged the order dated 19.04.2018, whereby an application moved by the petitioner under Section 10 of CPC in Civil Suit No. 3A/2016 was rejected by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Sitapur, District Surguja. 2. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 5 filed a suit for declaration of title and possession in respect of suit property described in Schedule “B” of the plaint situated at village Poprenga, Tahsil Batouli, District Surguja. The suit property mentioned in Schedule “A” belonged to Late Dhaniya Kanwar, who died leaving behind two daughters, namely; Muto and Chuto; there was partition between Muto and Chuto. Pursuant to revenue proceeding vide order 27.08.2020, the Schedule “B” property fell in share of Chuto while property mentioned in Schedule “C” was succeeded by legal representatives of Muto, namely Setram and Sahuram (defendants No. 1 & 2). Late Chuto sold her share of Schedule “B” to one Anuksai through registered sale-deed dated 17.05.1991 and possession was also handed over and name of Anuksai was entered in revenue record. She died on 11.01.2015. Plaintiffs are legal representatives of Anuksai. 3. On 30.06.1992, the defendants No. 1 & 2 filed a suit for declaration of sale- deed dated 17.05.1991 null and void and not binding along with relief of permanent injunction. A civil suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.06.1994. First appeal under Section 96 of CPC preferred by defendants No. 1 & 2 was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.1999. In the second appeal, judgment was passed in 3 favour of the plaintiffs and at present the matter is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed order of status-quo in the SLP preferred by the petitioner. 4. The plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 5 filed a separate suit claiming therein possession of the suit property mentioned in Schedule “B” on 17.03.2016. The petitioner moved an application under Section 10 of the CPC in the pending Civil Suit No. 3A/2016 on 06.04.2018 on the ground that same subject matter involved in instant suit is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned trial Court vide order dated 19.04.2018 rejected the application and against said order this petition has been preferred. 5. Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No. 1 would submit that initially a suit was filed by the defendants No. 1 & 2 to declare sale-deed dated 17.05.1991 as null and void and not binding upon them along with relief of permanent injunction. He would further submit that the issues which were framed and decided in that suit are almost similar with the issues involved in the subsequent Civil Suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 5, and therefore, the learned trial Court committed an error of law while rejecting the application moved under Section 10 of CPC. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, would oppose. He would submit that though the subject property is same, but the issues are entirely different. He would further submit that in the earlier suit, the defendants No. 1 & 2 had claimed relief to declare the sale-deed dated 17.05.1991 null and void and permanent injunction, whereas, the private respondents/plaintiffs have filed subsequent suit claiming therein possession of the suit property as judgment was passed in their favour by 4 the High Court in the second appeal. He would contend that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the order passed by the learned Court below. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9. Section 10 of CPC deals with Stay of suit and same is reproduced herein- below :- 10. Stay of suit.-No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in [India] having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of [India] established or continued by the Central Government] [*] and having like jurisdiction, or before [the Supreme Court]. Explanation. The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in [India] from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action. 10. For application of Section 10 of CPC there must be a previously instituted suit that is pending in Court with jurisdiction, and the parties, matter in issue, and cause of action must be directly and substantially the same in both suits. 11. In the present case, though both the suit are between the same parties and the suit property is also same, but the reliefs sought and cause of action in both the Civil Suits are entirely different. Earlier suit was filed by defendants 5 No. 1 & 2 therein seeking relief to declare sale-deed dated 17.05.1991 null and void and permanent injunction, whereas, subsequent suit has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 5 herein for possession and thus, the question involved and issues decided in the previous suit are entirely different from the issues involved in the present suit; therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner; therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the said order. 12. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). 13. Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant