RAHUL GARG Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition assails the order dated 10.01.2011 of CCJ/ARC whereby the civil suit being Suit No. 82/10 filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal seeking damages on account of defamation was stayed under Section 10 CPC.

(2.) THE filing of the aforesaid suit for recovery of damages on account of defamation (Suit No. 82/10) by the petitioner herein against the respondent has its genesis in the suit that was filed by the respondent against his (petitioner) sister Deepika Garg @ Deepika Mathur (Suit No. 731/09). This suit being 731/09 was filed by the respondent against Deepika for mandatory injunction and for specific performance and for recovery of Rs. 2,80,600/-. During the pendency of this suit, an application was filed by Deepika (defendant therein) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Simultaneously, an application under Order 7 Rule 10(A) CPC was also filed by the respondent (plaintiff therein). Vide order dated 21.12.2009, the application under Order 7 Rule 10 (A) of the plaintiff therein i.e. Pradeep Kumar Aggawal was allowed and the plaint was returned to him. Thereafter, he filed another suit being Suit No. 1/10 against Deepika and present petitioner Rahul Garg seeking the same reliefs. This suit was filed on 12.1.2010.

(3.) THE impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that his suit was filed based on the defamatory allegations in the previous suit (Suit No. 731/09) filed by the respondent against his sister and not pending suit (Suit No. 1/10) filed by the respondent against him and his sister Deepika. The impugned order was also assailed on the ground that in any case, the subject matter of the suit for specific performance, mandatory injunction etc. in the Suit No. 1/10 (filed by respondent) could not be said to be same in Suit No. 82/2010 (filed by petitioner) for seeking damages for defamation. In other words, the submission is that both the suits have different cause of actions and different subject matters, raising different issues, the present suit (Suit No. 82/10) could not be stayed under Section 10 CPC.