SUBINOY NANDI Vs. GAUTAM DARIPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is directed against the order dated 01. 08. 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior division), Additional Court, Bankura in Title Suit No. 1 of 2003 subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No. 23 of 2005 whereby he has rejected the petition under Section 10 of the Code of Civil procedure filed by the defendants.

(2.) THE fact of the case in short is that the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 filed the Title Suit No. 132 of 1998 against three persons namely, Sukumar Nandi, Subinoy Nandi and Sumit Nandi, for declaration of his title in respect of "ka" schedule property and permanent injunction. That suit is pending. Thereafter, he filed another Title Suit No. 1 of 2003 praying for declaration that the sale deed dated 20. 11. 1996 executed in favour of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 is void and illegal and consequently the municipal plan for construction of a house thereon by the opposite party no. 2 is also void and illegal. He has also prayed for permanent injunction not to disturb his possession over the "ka" schedule property and not to make any construction on the property mentioned in schedule "ga" of the plaint. The defendants/petitioners herein are contesting the two suits. They have filed a written statement of defence in the respective suits. Issues have been framed. Now the defendants/petitioners herein have prayed for stay of the Title Suit No. 1 of 2003 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That petition was rejected by the impugned order. So the defendants/petitioners herein have preferred the present application.

(3.) HAVING considered the submission of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the record, I find that the contention of the petitioners is that suit properties in the two suits are same. Parties are also same. In the latter suit, the concerned Municipal Authority has been impleaded as party because it sanctioned the plan. So reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the two suits are same. Therefore, the principle of stay as laid down in Section 10 of the C. P. C. is very much applicable in the instant situation and so the latter suit should be stayed till the disposal of the earlier suit that is Title Suit No. 132 of 1998 filed by the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 herein.