- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 13.4.07 (Annex.6) passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.6, Jodhpur whereby an application filed under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code was rejected.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default to pay the rent and arrears. In the said suit, the petitioner defendant filed his reply so also an application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. in which it is submitted that respondent filed the present eviction suit against the petitioner defendant for the same premises and on same issue directly and substantially similar to the issue in the previous suit was filed before the trial court earlier which was decreed by compromise on 06.10.65. In the application it is pleaded that the respondent plaintiff has filed petition for execution of the judgment and decree dated 06.10.65 which is pending in the Execution court. It is submitted that respondent plaintiff filed reply to the application in which it is submitted that execution proceedings is pending in relation to Quarter No.13 whereas, the present suit has been filed for eviction against the defendant petitioner for Quarter No.10. Therefore, the controversy in both the suits are altogether different. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no numbers are mentioned upon the quarters, therefore, the reply filed by the respondent plaintiff is totally wrong but trial court did not accept the contention raised by the petitioner defendant and rejected the application, therefore, the order impugned is not justified. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent stated at Bar that the instant suit is related with Quarter No.10 and earlier suit No. 85/65 was filed for eviction from Quarter No.13 in which a compromise decree was passed for which execution proceeding is pending, therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 10 of C.P.C for staying the proceedings of present suit on the ground that in both the suits, number of quarters are different. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order so also considered the statement made at Bar by the learned counsel for the respondent with regard to number of quarter which was subject matter of earlier suit and present suit.
(3.) IN view of above, it is clear that earlier suit was in relation to Quarter No.13 and present suit is for Quarter No.10, therefore, there is no question of saying that trial court has committed any wrong while deciding the application under Section 10 of C.P.C. to stay the proceedings of present suit. Hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.;