Disposed

Satish v. Smt. Saini Bai

Chhattisgarh HC10 Nov 2024WP227/84/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dismissal of his application for framing additional issues in a partition suit. Counsel sought liberty to file a Section 10 CPC stay application given a pending earlier suit. The High Court permitted him to move the trial Court, which must decide it within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a Section 10 CPC stay application before the trial Court, which shall decide it within 30 days.

Satish Vs Smt. Saini Bai — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:43751

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

W.P(227) No.84 of 2022

¶6

Satish S/o Late Bhikhu Uraon Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Gangoli, Tehsil Lundra, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Smt. Saini Bai W/o Bhikhu Uraon, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Gangoli, Tehsil Lundra, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Smt. Meena D/o Late Bhikhu Uraon, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Gangoli, Tehsil Lundra, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - Chanda D/o Late Bhikhu Uraon, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Gangoli, Tehsil Lundra, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2024.11.11 17:14:52 +0530

¶12

4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Ishwari Dhritlahare, Advocate No.1 to 3: For Respondent Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, PL. No.4/State

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order on Board

2 / 3

11.11.2024

This Petition has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the 2^nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No.42-A/2015 whereby, the application preferred under Order 14 CPC by the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 for framing additional issues, has been dismissed.

¶20

Necessary facts of the case are that Respondents/Plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction claiming 1/4^th share of the suit property. The Respondents/Plaintiffs have earlier also filed Civil Suit bearing No.90-A/2009 for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which was allowed in favour the Respondent/Plaintiff-Saini Bai and a First Appeal was filed by the Petitioner on the ground of limitation against which, Second Appeal No.511/2013 was preferred, which was also allowed and the case was remitted back to the 1^st Appellate Court to be decided afresh.

¶21

Shri Sinha submits that though earlier, an objection has been raised with regard to the applicability of res judicata under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but 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, therefore, the provision of stay under Section 10 CPC attracts and prays that this Petition may be disposed of reserving the liberty in his favour to file an appropriate application before the trial Court, which shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶22

3 / 3

¶23

Learned Counsel for the Respondents do not oppose the said prayer.

¶24

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and having heard the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties that for a similar issue of declaration of title and permanent injunction, earlier, a suit has been filed i.e. Civil Suit No.90-A/2009, which has been remitted back in Second Appeal No.511/2013 for deciding afresh as earlier, the same issue was pending, therefore, this Court directs that the Petitioner would be at liberty to file an appropriate application under Section 10 CPC before the trial Court for staying of the suit till adjudication of the earlier suit. This Court further directs that on such application being filed by the Petitioner/Defendant, the trial Court shall decide the same in an expeditious manner, preferably within an outer limit of 30 days after filing of the said application.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the instant Petition stands disposed of.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶28

Judge

¶29

Priya

Satish v. Smt. Saini Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish v. Smt. Saini Bai

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

Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs Keshav Sonkar

Devesh Sharma Vs Smt. Beenu Sharma

Smt. Niketa Tripathi Vs Rajiv Kumar Dubey

Pawan Kumar Agrawal Vs Krishna Kumar Agarawal

M/S Mihir Minerals, Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Vikas Khare Vs Shweta Shrivastav