Y LOKESHWARI Vs. RAJANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in a pending civil Suit in O.S.No.401/2005. The suit schedule property described therein is as follows: "Property bearing Khata No. 414C/424, Site No.414C measuring East to West by 25 feet and North to South by 30 feet situated at Ward No.2, Aralimaradapalya, Sira Gate, Tumkur <FRM>JUDGEMENT_487_KCCR1_2010Html1.htm</FRM> The respondent herein has also filed a Civil suit which is earlier in point of time in O.S.No.378/2005 in respect of property which is described in the schedule thereto as follows: Land bearing Survey No.198/1A2 measuring 0-28 guntas situated at Tumkur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, which is converted and alienated for residential purpose, bounded by: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_487_KCCR1_2010Html2.htm</FRM> The respondent having filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking stay of further proceedings in the Civil suit filed by the petitioner, the trial Court has come to a conclusion that the parties are one and the same, the issues that arise for consideration would be one and the same and the properties identified in the suit schedule are one and the same and therefore, the suit in O.S.401/2005 ought to be stayed. It is this which is under challenge.

(3.) The Counsel for the petitioner would point out that the schedule to the two suits would indicate that the properties are not identical. The property described in schedule to the suit by the respondent measures 28 guntas. The property described in the schedule to the suit filed by the petitioner measures 25 feet x 30 feet. This, on the face of it, would indicate that the properties are not one and the same and insofar as the identity of the property is concerned, the property is described by its khata number and site number, whereas the property in the suit filed by the respondent is described by survey number. This, on the face of it, would indicate that the properties are not one and the same. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in holding that Section 10 stood attracted and in staying the proceedings in the suit filed by the petitioner.