Full Judgment
C.R.No.4352 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4352 of 2013 Date of decision :
23. 07.2013 Darshan Singh ....Petitioner V/s Ranjeet Singh ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashish Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAJAN GUPTA J.
(ORAL) Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Division).Bathinda whereby application under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by respondent- Ranjeet Singh has been allowed and subsequent suit has been adjourned sine die.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that matter in the subsequent suit is different.
It is not directly and substantially in issue as in the earlier suit.
Thus, trial court has erred in invoking section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Admittedly, suit filed by the petitioner is subsequent to earlier suit titled as Ranjeet Singh v/s Darshan Singh.
The said suit was filed on the basis of agreement to sell dated 18.09.2007.
Trial in the suit is stated to be nearing culmination.
On an application moved by respondent under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court found that earlier suit for specific performance was on the basis of agreement to sell dated 18.09.2007.
Plaintiff Kumar Ajay 2013.07.25 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R.No.4352 o”
2. filed the instant suit seeking a declaration that said agreement was null and void.
The court, thus, came to the conclusion that matter being directly and substantially in issue as in the earlier suit, section 10 CPC would be attracted.
It, thus, stayed the proceedings in the subsequent suit and adjourned the case sine die.
I find no legal infirmity with the order.
There is no scope for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
July 23, 2013 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE Kumar Ajay 2013.07.25 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document