DILIP KUMAR SINGHANIA Vs. BASANT KUMAR SINGHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts as noted, is that the petitioner herein had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent in the Court of Munsiff, Shillong being T.S. No. 37(H) 2005, claiming right title and interest over a passage in which fell in the portion of land allotted to the petitioner under a Family Settlement dated 08.04.1969, and also for restraining the respondent from using the passage as an approach to the hotel of the respondent, namely 'Hotel Nataraj ' which had a separate independent entry from the Quinton Road side. An application for interim injunction was also filed therein being Misc. Case No. 44(H) 2005, and the trial court by order dated 07.11.2005 passed an order of ad interim injunction.

(2.) The respondent subsequently, also filed a suit in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Shillong being T.S. No. 22(H) of 2005 (now renumbered as 39/2013) against the petitioner claiming his right to use the said passage as an approach to his land and hotel. The respondent also filed Misc. Case No. 34(H) 2005 for interim injunction and the said Court vide order dated 06.12.2005 passed an injunction order against the petitioner.

(3.) The respondent initially contested the suit filed by the petitioner but later it seems on the failure on the part of the respondent to take steps, the suit proceeded ex-parte. The suit of the petitioner however, came to be dismissed on 21.11.2014 for reasons as recorded in the judgment of the Munsiff, and a review of the order thereof being Review Pet. No. 26(H) 2014 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Court of the District Judge, Shillong being RFA No. 1(H) 2015, and the same is pending disposal. The petitioner thereafter filed an application U/S under Section 10 of the CPC for stay of the suit of the respondent i.e., 22(H) of 2005 (new 39/2013) pending in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Shillong on the ground that the subject matter of both the suits were the same and also that any decision in one suit would operate as res-judicata in the other suit.