Dismissed

Namdeo Keru Bangar and Another v. Sarjerao Nathu Bangar and Others

Bombay HC12 Mar 2018WP/2318/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Trial Court order staying a subsequent suit under Section 10 CPC. The court held that since both suits sought identical declarations regarding the same property, the stay was not erroneous.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's order staying the subsequent suit.

Namdeo Keru Bangar and Another Vs Sarjerao Nathu Bangar… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

23wp2318o18

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2318 OF 2018

¶5

NAMDEO KERU BANGAR AND ANOTHER VERSUS

¶6

SARJERAO NATHU BANGAR AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioners : Shri Bangar Nilkanth P..

¶8

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

¶9

DATE :- 12^th March, 2018

¶10

Per Court:

¶11

1 The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2017 by which, the Trial Court has allowed the application Exhibit-32 filed by the Defendants under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has stayed RCS No.230/2016 pending the decision in RCS No.206/2016.

¶12

2 The learned Advocate for the Petitioners has strenuously criticized the impugned order. The contention is that Respondent Nos.1 to 3/ Plaintiffs preferred RCS No.206/2016 on 14.07.2016 seeking a declaration of ownership and title to the suit property. These Petitioners are the Defendants in the said suit. These Petitioners, therefore, preferred RCS No.230/2016 on 29.07.2016 in which, they claimed a declaration of ownership and title with regard to the same property in which, the Respondents herein have been arrayed as Defendants.

¶13

2 23wp2318o18

¶14

3 It is, therefore, apparent from the prayers put forth in both these suits that the respective Plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration of ownership and title over the same suit property. RCS No.206/2016 is filed earlier in point of time.

¶15

4 Considering the effect of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the issue involved in both the suits is substantially the same, the suit filed later in point of time has to be stayed.

¶16

5 I, therefore, find that as the respective Plaintiffs have sought the same declaration of ownership and title in their respective suits, if both suits are permitted to be tried simultaneously, there could be a possibility that diverse/ contrary orders could be passed.

¶17

6 In the light of the above, I do not find that the impugned order staying the subsequent suit could be termed as being perverse or erroneous. This Writ Petition being devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed.

¶18

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶19

kps

Namdeo Keru Bangar and Another v. Sarjerao Nathu Bangar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namdeo Keru Bangar and Another v. Sarjerao Nathu Bangar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baburao Bhagaji Pandit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Sirajoddin Kamaloddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chanda Ashish Modani and Others Vs Chandulal Manikchand Gandhi Died Lrs Snehalata Chandulal Gandhi and Others

Aashish Aashutosh Shamkant Shukl Vs Bhushan Ramdas Choudhary and Others

Gulab Fakir Mohammad Maljapte through His Gpa Firoz Gulab Maljapte Vs Musa Abdulbhai Maljapte and Others

Ravindra Anandrao Bagle and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others