respondent. After the said suit came to be filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 herein filed Reg. Civil Suit No. 7 of 2009 claiming a declaration in respect of the same property. Admittedly, the respondent is a defendant in the suit filed by the petitioner wherein the respondent No.1 has raised the claim that he is the exclusive owner of the property in question. Since the parties to both the suits are same and since the property in question is common, in my opinion, the issues arising in both the suits are overlapping. Hence, considering the well settled principles, in so far as section 10 of C.P. Code are concerned, it would be just and proper to stay the subsequent Reg. Civil Suit No. 7 of 2009 filed by the respondent No.1 herein. The trial Court was swayed by the fact that the issues raised in both the suits are different. In my view, considering the scope of both the suits, the reliefs overlap and therefore, the application Exh. 18 is required to be allowed and the impugned order dated 13/1/2011 is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Resultantly, the above petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Consequently, hearing of the Reg. Civil Suit No. 7 of 2009 is stayed pending Reg. Civil Suit No. 8 of 2007. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms with parties to bear their respective costs .”
