- (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner Purshottam Vishnoi has beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 7th September, 2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 10 CPC.
(2.) ADUMBRATED in brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 Mohd. Rafiq Khan and respondent no.3 Keshar Hassan Khan jointly filed a suit for restoration of possession against the petitioner-defendant. This suit has been pending in the court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Section 10 of CPC stating that there is one more suit, which came to be filed by Mukhtar Hassan Khan, Shuaib Khan and Keshar Hassan Khan against Waqf Board and other parties. Since the parties in both the suits are common and the matter in issue is also directly and indirectly common in both the suits, the proceedings of the later suit be stayed U/s. 10 of CPC. The learned trial court, having heard both the parties, dismissed the application, as indicated here-in-above. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the impugned order as also the relevant material on record. At the very out-set, it is relevant to record that with a view to attract provisions of Section 10, the following conditions must be fulfilled: i) The suits must be between the same parties or the successors; ii) The matter in dispute in the later suit must be directly and substantially the same in the previous suit; iii) Both the suits must be pending in the court of law; and iv) the parties must be litigating under the same title in both the suits. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is tangible from bare reading of the prayers made in both the suits that the relief sought for are not identical. In the previous suit, the respondents no. 2 and 3 filed a suit for declaration and injunction and petitioner is not a party therein, whereas in the later suit, it is found that it is a suit for restoration of possession. During the pendency of these two suits, one application came to be filed under Section 24 of CPC before the learned District Judge, wherein it was implored that both the suits be amalgamated and the trial be conducted by one court. The learned District Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the parties in both the suits were not the same and matter in dispute, directly and indirectly, was also not the same in both the suits. Learned trial court also having analyzed the facts of both the suits ad-longum observed that not only the parties in both the suits were not the same, but the nature and the relief sought for in both the suits were also distinct. Learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to convince me so as to interfere with the impugned order. The learned trial court is found to have rightly observed that the matter in issue, directly and indirectly in both the suits, were not identical nor the parties of both the suits were the same.
(3.) I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order and thus, the writ petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed at the threshold, which stands dismissed accordingly. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed herewith, does not survive and the same also stand dismissed accordingly.;