W.P.No.7040/2010
Prem Singh State of M.P.
21.6.2010.
Shri Anand Dutt Mishra, Counsel for the petitioner.
This petition is directed against an order dated 24.2..2010
by the Civil Judge Class-1, Ashta, Dist. Sehore by which an
application field by respondent under Section 10 C.P.C dated
3.1.2009 was allowed and the proceedings in the present suit
were stayed.
(2) The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order on the
ground that the earlier suit was entirely different and in the
present case the reliefs which have been prayed by the petitioner
are entirely different and the trial Court erred in allowing such
application.
It was further submitted by Shri Mishra that the earlier suit
which was for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of
land S.N,.932/2 area 3 acres of village Kotri, Tehsil Ashta was
decreed by the appellate Court. Though a second appeal has
been preferred by the State, but the High Court has not stayed the
judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court so, the
petitioner was entitled for mutation on the land of his name. The
petitioner moved an application before the Tehsidlar under
Section 109 of M.P.Land Revenue Coude, 1959, but the Tehsildar
in place of effecting mutation sought opinion of the Advocate
General and till date no order was passed, so the present suit was
filed against the respondent claiming a mandatory injunction to
effect mutation in the revenue records.The respondent though
filed an application under Section 10 of C.P.C but in absence of
any stay order by the High Court in earlier matter, the petitioner
was entitled for mutation but the trial Court erred in granting stay
of further proceedings of the present suit. It is submitted that the
impugned order may be set aside.
W.P.No.7040/2010
Prem Singh State of M.P.
(3) From the perusal of the record, we find that in respect of
land of S.N.932/2 area 3 acres of village Kothri, Tehsil Ashta, Dist.
Sehore, the suit was filed by the petitioner for declaration and
permanent injunction against the State. The trial Court dismissed
the suit. In an appeal filed by the petitioner the suit was decreed.
No interim order was passed by the High Court. In the meantime,
the petitioner herein moved an application before the
Trial Court seeking mutation on the land in the revenue record,
which has not been effected till date. Section 10 of C.P.C provides
that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the
matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a
previously instituted suit between the same parties.In the present
case, the subject-matter of the present suit is also subject-matter
of the earlier instituted suit which is pending in second appeal
before this Court. On the anvil of Section 10 of C.P.C, the trial
Court rightly stayed further proceedings of the subsequent suit as
decision of the earlier suit will have an effect of res judicata on
the latter suit. In the impugned order, we do not find any error of
jurisdiction warranting our interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.This petition is accordingly dismissed with no
order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (J.K.Maheshwari)
Judge Judge
JLL