Full Judgment
Dinesh Kumar Gupta & Anr.
versus Ramchandra Gupta & Anr.
Writ Petition No.21743 ”
9. 1.2013: Shri A.P.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Challenging an order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the Ist Civil Judge Class-I Waidhan in Civil Suit No.5-A/12 refusing the stay proceedings in the suit and rejecting an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure this writ petition has been filed.
Respondent/plaintiff Ramchandra Gupta has filed the suit in question against the petitioners for partition and injunction in respect of the land detailed in para 8 of the plaint.
The suit is registered as Civil Suit 5-A/2012 and is pending in the court of Civil Judge Class- I Waidhan.
According to the petitioners earlier in point of time petitioners have also filed a civil suit in which respondent No.1 is a party.
The said civil suit is registered as civil suit No.42-A/2011 and is pending in the court of Additional District Judge Waidhan and, therefore, seeking stay of the present suit on the ground that earlier suit filed by petitioner Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta is pending the application was filed, the application having been rejected petitioners are before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners took me through the plaint in both the cases Annexure P-1 and P-2 tried to emphasize that the suit property in both the cases are similar, the parties are also identical and, therefore, the suit subsequently filed, namely the present suit, should have been stayed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the records.
The earlier suit is filed by the petitioner Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, in the said suit the respondent Ramchandra Gupta is defendant No.1 and the other defendants are Shri Anil 2 Kumar Gupta S/o.
Shri Ramchandra Gupta, Smt.
Sharda Keshri W/o.
Shri Anil Kumar Gupta and Smt.
Sunita Gupta W/o.
Shri Krishna Kumar Gupta.
In the present suit filed Ramchandra Gupta is the plaintiff and the petitioner Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Smt.
Anit Gupta are the defendants, learned court below has scrutinized the records and it is found that in both the suit the subject matter is different and the parties are also different.
It is found that the present suit was filed on 19.6.2012 and the earlier suit was filed on 11.10.2011 the earlier suit has also been filed for declaration and partition, but the documents available in the said record goes to show that the property involved in the earlier suit and present suit are different.
In the earlier suit, certain dispute involved in the matter of a tractor agency is of M/S.Seth Badri Prasad in which Ramchandra and Dinesh are parties.
Whereas in the present suit it is held that the suit property is different.
The learned court below has analyzed the documents and it came to the conclusion that property with regard to suit and the parties being different, has rejected the application under Section 10.
Accordingly, I see no reason to interfere into the matter, the petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-