ANIL KUMAR DAS Vs. ANJALI HATIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.72 dated July 4, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhargram in Title Suit No.31 of 2000.

(2.) The short fact is that the plaintiff/petitioner field the Title Suit no.31 of 2000 for declaration of his title in respect of A schedule property, recovery of possession of the suit property and other reliefs in the year 2000. On April 6, 2006, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application for stay of that suit on the ground that he filed a suit for partition in respect of the selfsame property before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhargram and so this suit should be stayed. That application was rejected by the impugned order observing that the earlier suit between the same parties over the selfsame property cannot be stayed. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, this application has been preferred.

(3.) Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that in the year 2000 the plaintiff/petitioner filed the Title Suit No.31 of 2000 against the opposite parties for declaration of his title over A schedule property, recovery of possession and other reliefs before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhargram. Subsequently, in the year 2005 the said plaintiff filed a suit for partition over the selfsame property before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Jhargram. The contention of the plaintiff is that this suit (T.S. 31 of 2000) filed by him should be stayed as the suit for partition is pending between them over the selfsame property. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff has filed the said application as per provisions of Section 10 of the C.P.C. For convenience, I am quoting the provisions of Section 10 of the C.P.C.