Ali Uddin Haider And Anr v. Revisionist(s) S.S.N. Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd.Lucknow Thru.Director And Anr .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s)

whereby an application moved by the revisionists (who was the defendant in the said suit) under Section 10 CPC has been rejected.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the revisionists was the Bhumidhar with transferable rights in respect of Bhumidhari plot nos.450, 451, 452Ka, 453ka, 460kha, 468, 942, 480, 488, 493kha, 494, 495 and 916ka all situated in Village-Gauria Kalan, Pargana, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, Lucknow. It is also stated that the revisionist had sold the said plots to the respondents. However, in so far as plot no.496 is concerned, the same was not sold to the respondent and the revisionists continue to be its recorded Bhumidhar.

4. It is urged that the respondent by resorting the fraud manipulated the sale deed dated 19.08.2017 and surreptitiously included Bhumidhar plot no.496 (which was never agreed nor sold by the revisionists to the respondents). It is in this backdrop that the revisionists had instituted a suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hawali, Lucknow on

31.10.2017 seeking cancellation of the sale deed in so far as the plot no.496 is concerned. The said suit came to be registered as suit no.1715 of 2 CLRE No. 17 of 2019

5. While the said suit was pending, the respondent instituted a fresh suit before the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Mohanlalganj, Lucknow seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the revisionists and this suit was registered as Regular Suit no.1217 of 2017.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, the revisionists moved an application before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mohanlalganj in Regular Suit no.1217 of 2017 seeking stay of the trial of the suit by invoking the provisions of Section 10 CPC. The said application came to be rejected by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mohanlalganj, Lucknow vide order dated

27.10.2018 which is under challenge in the instant revision.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has pointed out that in terms of Section 10 CPC when there is commonality in the issue which may be engaging the attention of two different courts, between the same parties with the further addition that in case, if any finding is recorded in one suit it may operate as res judicata in the other suit then, in such circumstances, Section 10 CPC mandates the stay of trial of the subsequent suit. It is, thus, contended that once the suit of revisionists had been filed prior in time in respect of plot no.496 which was included in the suit instituted subsequently by the respondent before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mohanlalganj hence, the trial of the said suit should have been stayed.

8. It is further urged that the trial court has committed an error in rejecting the application when the entire ingredients of Section 10 CPC as envisaged in law were clearly applicable to the facts of the case. In such circumstances the impugned order is without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside under the revisional powers of this Court.

9. Sri Mishra learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the aforesaid submissions and has urged that the suit pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hawali, Lucknow is only in respect of plot no.496 whereas the suit filed by the respondent before the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Mohanlalganj, relates to other plots which have been admittedly sold by the revisionists and it also includes plot no.496, as well. 3 CLRE No. 17 of 2019

10. In the aforesaid circumstances, since two courts are involved and one is a court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction whereas the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mohanlalganj is a Court of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, hence, in such circumstances, even though the suit of the respondent was subsequent in point of time cannot be stayed for the reasons that the suit before the Junior Division is related to only one plot. In such circumstances, it is urged that the trial court has rightly rejected the application and there can be no error either of jurisdiction or otherwise which is patent on the face of record, accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed.

11. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

12. The facts which are not in dispute between the parties are: (i) That the revisionists as plaintiff, had instituted the suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hawali, Lucknow seeking the cancellation of the sale deed only in respect of plot no.496 which is in the eye of the storm. As per the revisionists, this particular plot no.496 was never sold and this has been fraudulently and surreptitiously included by the respondents in the said sale deed. (ii) It is also not disputed that the respondents had instituted a suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mohanlalganj, Lucknow seeking a decree of permanent injunction stating that the respondents are in possession of the said plots on the basis of of a sale deed executed by the revisionists themself which also includes plot no.496 and the revisionists be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by the respondents. (iii) Another undisputed fact is that the suit filed by the revisionists is prior in time before the Court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction whereas the suit filed by the respondent is before the Court of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction but is the subsequent suit.

13. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed fact, the position as in law which emerges is that the trial pending before the Court of limited 4 CLRE No. 17 of 2019 pecuniary jurisdiction even though instituted prior in point of time cannot be considered for the purposes of staying a suit pending before a Court of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. This is for the reason that in terms of Section 10 CPC, the two Courts which should be seized of the subject matter must be before the court of equal and concurrent jurisdiction. This basic ingredient is missing in the instant case as already noticed in light of the undisputed fact.

14. There is another way to look at the entire issue, even though the revisionists claim to assail the sale deed only in respect of plot no.496 whereas the respondents had filed a suit for injunction in respect of several plots including plot no.496. In the aforesaid circumstances, where the respondents seeks to restrain the revisionists from interfering in the possession, the question would be whether it would be open for the respondents to file a suit for injunction by splitting the cause of action i.e. to say that in so far as those plots which are admitted by the revisionists to have been sold can be tried separately and in so far as one plot no.496 is concerned, which is disputed by revisionists, it, defendant/respondent can only file a suit before the court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction.

15. It will also be relevant to notice that provisions of Order 4-A CPC as amended in the State of U.P. gives right to the parties to consolidate two suits before the same Courts so that common evidence can be led and there are no contradictory findings returned by two different courts. Apart from Section 10 and Order 4-A CPC, the Code envisages and governs the right of transfer which is vested with the District Judge in terms of Section 24 CPC.

16. Having considered the provisions of Section 10, Order 4-A and Section 24 CPC, the position that arises is that in order to invoke Section 10 CPC the two suits must be pending before the court of concurrent or equal jurisdiction. In case, if one suit is pending before the court of limited jurisdiction and the other is pending before the court of unlimited jurisdiction, in such circumstances, if there is commonality of cause of action and the subject matter is common then a party can get the suit transferred so that they can be placed before same court by invoking 5 CLRE No. 17 of 2019 Section 24 CPC. However, it is also to be noticed that the court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction cannot try a suit beyond its pecuniary, however, the court of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction can even try a suit of limited pecuniary jurisdiction, accordingly, in the matter at hand the suit before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hawali Lucknow cannot try a suit of higher pecuniary jurisdiction whereas the suit pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mohanlalganj Lucknow can also try a suit of limited pecuniary jurisdiction. Moreover, as already noticed above, a party cannot be permitted to split its cause of action to file separate suits in two courts of different jurisdiction, hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists does not impress this Court.

17. In case, if there is any apprehension that any finding in one suit may adversely impact the other it is always for the parties to invoke the appropriate provisions under Section 24 CPC to get the suit pending before a court of limited jurisdiction so that it can be placed and tried before the court of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. Once the two suits are before the same Court, an application under Order 4-A CPC as amended in the State of U.P can also be moved to avoid any embarrassment of trial in as much if one of the findings may impact the finding in the other suit.

18. In light of the aforesaid, merely to move an application indicating that the suit pending in the court of unlimited jurisdiction though subsequently to stay the proceedings is not tenable and rejection of the application under Section 10 CPC vide order dated 27.10.2018 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error which may persuade this Court to interfere in the revision.

19. This Court finds that the revision is misconceived and it is accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open for the revisionists to take recourse as may be available in law. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. November 13, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

whereby an application moved by the revisionists (who was the defendant in the said suit) under Section 10 CPC has been rejected.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the revisionists was the Bhumidhar with transferable rights in respect of Bhumidhari plot nos.450, 451, 452Ka, 453ka, 460kha, 468, 942, 480, 488, 493kha, 494, 495 and 916ka all situated in Village-Gauria Kalan, Pargana, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, Lucknow. It is also stated that the revisionist had sold the said plots to the respondents. However, in so far as plot no.496 is concerned, the same was not sold to the respondent and the revisionists continue to be its recorded Bhumidhar.

4. It is urged that the respondent by resorting the fraud manipulated the sale deed dated 19.08.2017 and surreptitiously included Bhumidhar plot no.496 (which was never agreed nor sold by the revisionists to the respondents). It is in this backdrop that the revisionists had instituted a suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hawali, Lucknow on

31.10.2017 seeking cancellation of the sale deed in so far as the plot no.496 is concerned. The said suit came to be registered as suit no.1715 of 2 CLRE No. 17 of 2019

5. While the said suit was pending, the respondent instituted a fresh suit before the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Mohanlalganj, Lucknow seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the revisionists and this suit was registered as Regular Suit no.1217 of 2017.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, the revisionists moved an application before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mohanlalganj in Regular Suit no.1217 of 2017 seeking stay of the trial of the suit by invoking the provisions of Section 10 CPC. The said application came to be rejected by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mohanlalganj, Lucknow vide order dated

27.10.2018 which is under challenge in the instant revision.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has pointed out that in terms of Section 10 CPC when there is commonality in the issue which may be engaging the attention of two different courts, between the same parties with the further addition that in case, if any finding is recorded in one suit it may operate as res judicata in the other suit then, in such circumstances, Section 10 CPC mandates the stay of trial of the subsequent suit. It is, thus, contended that once the suit of revisionists had been filed prior in time in respect of plot no.496 which was included in the suit instituted subsequently by the respondent before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mohanlalganj hence, the trial of the said suit should have been stayed.

8. It is further urged that the trial court has committed an error in rejecting the application when the entire ingredients of Section 10 CPC as envisaged in law were clearly applicable to the facts of the case. In such circumstances the impugned order is without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside under the revisional powers of this Court.

9. Sri Mishra learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the aforesaid submissions and has urged that the suit pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hawali, Lucknow is only in respect of plot no.496 whereas the suit filed by the respondent before the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Mohanlalganj, relates to other plots which have been admittedly sold by the revisionists and it also includes plot no.496, as well. 3 CLRE No. 17 of 2019

10. In the aforesaid circumstances, since two courts are involved and one is a court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction whereas the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mohanlalganj is a Court of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, hence, in such circumstances, even though the suit of the respondent was subsequent in point of time cannot be stayed for the reasons that the suit before the Junior Division is related to only one plot. In such circumstances, it is urged that the trial court has rightly rejected the application and there can be no error either of jurisdiction or otherwise which is patent on the face of record, accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed.

11. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

12. The facts which are not in dispute between the parties are: (i) That the revisionists as plaintiff, had instituted the suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hawali, Lucknow seeking the cancellation of the sale deed only in respect of plot no.496 which is in the eye of the storm. As per the revisionists, this particular plot no.496 was never sold and this has been fraudulently and surreptitiously included by the respondents in the said sale deed. (ii) It is also not disputed that the respondents had instituted a suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mohanlalganj, Lucknow seeking a decree of permanent injunction stating that the respondents are in possession of the said plots on the basis of of a sale deed executed by the revisionists themself which also includes plot no.496 and the revisionists be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by the respondents. (iii) Another undisputed fact is that the suit filed by the revisionists is prior in time before the Court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction whereas the suit filed by the respondent is before the Court of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction but is the subsequent suit.

13. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed fact, the position as in law which emerges is that the trial pending before the Court of limited 4 CLRE No. 17 of 2019 pecuniary jurisdiction even though instituted prior in point of time cannot be considered for the purposes of staying a suit pending before a Court of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. This is for the reason that in terms of Section 10 CPC, the two Courts which should be seized of the subject matter must be before the court of equal and concurrent jurisdiction. This basic ingredient is missing in the instant case as already noticed in light of the undisputed fact.

14. There is another way to look at the entire issue, even though the revisionists claim to assail the sale deed only in respect of plot no.496 whereas the respondents had filed a suit for injunction in respect of several plots including plot no.496. In the aforesaid circumstances, where the respondents seeks to restrain the revisionists from interfering in the possession, the question would be whether it would be open for the respondents to file a suit for injunction by splitting the cause of action i.e. to say that in so far as those plots which are admitted by the revisionists to have been sold can be tried separately and in so far as one plot no.496 is concerned, which is disputed by revisionists, it, defendant/respondent can only file a suit before the court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction.

15. It will also be relevant to notice that provisions of Order 4-A CPC as amended in the State of U.P. gives right to the parties to consolidate two suits before the same Courts so that common evidence can be led and there are no contradictory findings returned by two different courts. Apart from Section 10 and Order 4-A CPC, the Code envisages and governs the right of transfer which is vested with the District Judge in terms of Section 24 CPC.

16. Having considered the provisions of Section 10, Order 4-A and Section 24 CPC, the position that arises is that in order to invoke Section 10 CPC the two suits must be pending before the court of concurrent or equal jurisdiction. In case, if one suit is pending before the court of limited jurisdiction and the other is pending before the court of unlimited jurisdiction, in such circumstances, if there is commonality of cause of action and the subject matter is common then a party can get the suit transferred so that they can be placed before same court by invoking 5 CLRE No. 17 of 2019 Section 24 CPC. However, it is also to be noticed that the court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction cannot try a suit beyond its pecuniary, however, the court of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction can even try a suit of limited pecuniary jurisdiction, accordingly, in the matter at hand the suit before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hawali Lucknow cannot try a suit of higher pecuniary jurisdiction whereas the suit pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mohanlalganj Lucknow can also try a suit of limited pecuniary jurisdiction. Moreover, as already noticed above, a party cannot be permitted to split its cause of action to file separate suits in two courts of different jurisdiction, hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists does not impress this Court.

17. In case, if there is any apprehension that any finding in one suit may adversely impact the other it is always for the parties to invoke the appropriate provisions under Section 24 CPC to get the suit pending before a court of limited jurisdiction so that it can be placed and tried before the court of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. Once the two suits are before the same Court, an application under Order 4-A CPC as amended in the State of U.P can also be moved to avoid any embarrassment of trial in as much if one of the findings may impact the finding in the other suit.

18. In light of the aforesaid, merely to move an application indicating that the suit pending in the court of unlimited jurisdiction though subsequently to stay the proceedings is not tenable and rejection of the application under Section 10 CPC vide order dated 27.10.2018 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error which may persuade this Court to interfere in the revision.

19. This Court finds that the revision is misconceived and it is accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open for the revisionists to take recourse as may be available in law. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. November 13, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench