Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.72 dated July 4, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhargram in Title Suit No.31 of 2000.
(2.) The short fact is that the plaintiff/petitioner field the Title Suit no.31 of 2000 for declaration of his title in respect of A schedule property, recovery of possession of the suit property and other reliefs in the year 2000. On April 6, 2006, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application for stay of that suit on the ground that he filed a suit for partition in respect of the selfsame property before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhargram and so this suit should be stayed. That application was rejected by the impugned order observing that the earlier suit between the same parties over the selfsame property cannot be stayed. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, this application has been preferred. 2. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order could be sustained.
(3.) Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that in the year 2000 the plaintiff/petitioner filed the Title Suit No.31 of 2000 against the opposite parties for declaration of his title over A schedule property, recovery of possession and other reliefs before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhargram. Subsequently, in the year 2005 the said plaintiff filed a suit for partition over the selfsame property before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Jhargram. The contention of the plaintiff is that this suit (T.S. 31 of 2000) filed by him should be stayed as the suit for partition is pending between them over the selfsame property. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff has filed the said application as per provisions of Section 10 of the C.P.C. For convenience, I am quoting the provisions of Section 10 of the C.P.C. 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 the 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]. From the petition of stay appearing at page no.27 of the application, I find that the petition dated April 6, 2006 does not lay down the essential ingredients for stay of the Title Suit No.31 of 2000. Simply, one paragraph has been mentioned therein praying for stay of the present suit on the ground that the plaintiff filed one partition suit. In fact, he did not mention what are the properties of the partition suit save mentioning plot no.955 or who are the parties to the said partition suit. From the said petition, it does not appear at all that the application falls within the provisions of Section 10 of the C.P.C.;