Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 10
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. A perusal of the plaint in the earlier suit filed by the petitioner would indicate that the said suit was filed only in respect of properties situated in S.No.56/1. Therefore, it is clear that property situated in S.No.56/2 which is also shown as a…
Judgment
CRP.No.5281 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :04.11.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR CRP.No.5281 of 2025 and CMP.No.26525 of 2025 Madheswari ... PetitionerVs.
Sasikala2. Minor Akash(Represented by his next friend/mother 1st respondent Sasikala) ...RespondentsPRAYER :Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying, to set aside the order dated 04.08.2025 rendered in IA.No.5/2023 in OS.No.253/2019 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Namakkal. For Petitioner: Mr.Sam Jayaraj Houston for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates.1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.5281 of 2025ORDER The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the court below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/1st defendant under Section 10 of CPC seeking stay of the suit.
The respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for partition in respect of two survey numbers namely S.Nos.56/1 and 56/2. The petitioner who was arrayed as 1st defendant in the suit filed an application under Section 10 of CPC seeking stay of the suit on the ground that earlier suit filed by him for partition was dismissed by the Trial Court and the second appeal arising out of said suit is still pending with the High Court. The application filed under Section 10 of CPC by the petitioner was dismissed by the Trial Court. Not satisfied with the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second appeal arising out of suit for partition filed by the petitioner is already pending with the High Court and any decision thereon would have a bearing on the present suit. Therefore, the trial Court ought have stayed the suit in terms of Section 10 of CPC.
As stated earlier, the present suit is in respect of properties situated in 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.5281 of 2025two survey numbers namely S.Nos.56/1 and 56/2.
Operative part
A perusal of the plaint in the earlier suit filed by the petitioner would indicate that the said suit was filed only in respect of properties situated in S.No.56/1. Therefore, it is clear that property situated in S.No.56/2 which is also shown as a suit property in the present suit for partition was not subject matter of the earlier suit. When the subject matter in both the suits are not one and the same, one of the essential condition for invoking doctrine of res sub judice is not at all satisfied. Hence, the Court below is justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of the suit under Section 10 of CPC. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.04.11.2025Index : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / No nrToThe learned Principal Sub Judge, Namakkal.S.SOUNTHAR , J.nr3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.5281 of 2025 CRP.No.5281 of 2025 andCMP.No.26525 of 202504.11.20254/4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 10.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.