Dismissed an application for stay of suit proceedings under Section 10 CPC. The court held that the court below correctly rejected the prayer as prerequisites were not established, noting parties and properties were not identical in both suits.
Application under Article 227 dismissed; impugned order maintaining status quo.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14247 of 2014
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surya kant Mishra, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 17-10-2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the impugned order by which the learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.14247 of 2014 dt.17-10-2016
2
court below has turned down the prayer of the defendant-petitioners in the suit for stay of the proceeding of the suit under Section 10 of C.P.C, this application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned court below has committed error of jurisdiction in not granting the prayer as made by the defendant-petitioners in view of the fact that earlier T.S. No. 45 of 2011 has been pending between the same parties with regard to the same land.
After considering the submissions and the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned court below has recorded the finding that the petitioners could not establish the prerequisites for application of Section 10 C.P.C. In the present application also the plaint of both the suits have not been annexed or produced in order to establish that T.S. No. 154 of 2012 was required to be stayed in view of the pendency of the earlier T.S. No. 45 of 2011. From the perusal of the rejoinder filed by the defendant which has been annexed as Annexure-3, it also appears that the parties as well as the suit property in both the suits are not the same. In this backdrop, this court is not inclined to interdict the impugned order invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14247 of 2014 dt.17-10-2016
3
The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
| Ranjan | /- |
(V. Nath, J) |
|---|---|---|
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR | |
| CAVDATE | N.A. | |
| UploadingDat | e 07.12.16 |
|
| Transmission | N.A. | |
| Date |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should intervene under Article 227 to direct the lower court to grant a stay of suit proceedings under Section 10 CPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lal Bihari Rai
Lachhu Rai
Jattu Rai
Padarath Rai
V. Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
