SHASHI DEVI Vs. RAJU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is directed against Sub Judge Jammu's order of september 3, 2007, staying petitioner's suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) WHILE directing the stay of petitioner's subsequent suit the learned Judge has taken the following view :-"the parties are litigating under the same title. The object of this section is to prevent two Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of same matter in issue. It is based on the principle that one cause be finally determined in one proceeding and by one court alone. Having gone through the pleadings of the parties in the instant suit as well as those in the earlier suit, the certified copies of which have been placed on record by the defendants I am in agreement with defendants that whatever averments are made in the instant suit by the plaintiff are already there in his counter-claim to the suit of the defendants which is prior in time having been filed on 16th of August, 2004. Whereas the instant suit came to be filed much later and on 25th February, 2006. In both her counter-claim and instant suit plaintiff has claimed to be in possession of same plot of land bearing survey No. 84 min measuring 5 marlas on the basis of an agreement to sell executed by one Ponam Devi in her favour which she has claimed to have circumfenced with brick walls on all the four sides and has sought injunction against the defendants from causing unlawful interference therein either themselves or through their agents. A counter-claim is treated as plaint for all practical purposes and if averments therein are proved the Court can grant the relief as prayed for therein. So matter in issue in the instant suit is already in issue in the earlier suit by the defendants as agitated by the plaintiff (herein) by way of counter-claim and the Court concerned is competent to grant the relief as prayed for therein. Parties in both the suits are same and the subject-matter of the instant suit as well as that of counter-claim is also the same. So, leaving aside the earlier suit of defendants, the counter-claim made by the plaintiff itself bars her from re-agitating the same matter. Thus, the provisions of section 10, CPC are squarely attracted. "

(3.) MR. S. K. Puri, appearing for the petitioner submits that the view taken by the learned Sub Judge is incorrect as all the parties to the subsequent suit were not the same and the earlier suit filed by the respondents against the petitioner pertained to survey No. 83 and not 84-min.