CRP 469/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajbarbhui yan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, who is the defendant No.1 in Title Suit No.5/2006 filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) , by the present petition has challenged the order dated 02.09.2006 passed by th e learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi, refusing to stay the furthe r proceeding in Title Suit No.5/2006 till disposal of RFA No.120/2005, which has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2005 passed by the learn ed Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi in Title Suit No.33/2003 dismissing the suit filed by the present petitioner against the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent Nos.1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and others. It has been submitted by Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner th at since in the earlier suit filed by the present petitioner a decree declaring the right, title, interest and confirmation of possession was sought for in resp ect of the land measuring 1 bigha 6 kathas covered by Dag No.44 (Part), 2nd R.S. Patta No.16 and Dag No.43 (Part), 2nd R.S. Patta No.2 at Hailakandi town, Ward No.1, Mouja Rangauti, Part-III, Porgonah, in the district of Hailakandi and in t he subsequent suit being Title Suit No.5/2006 filed by the predecessor-in-intere st of the present respondent Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c), who was the defendant No.1 in the earlier suit filed by the present petitioner decree has been prayed for declaring right, title and interest in respect of 6 kathas 8 chattaks of land, w hich is part of 1 bigha 6 kathas of land, i.e. subject matter of the earlier sui t, the learned Court below ought not to have refused to stay the further proceed ing in the subsequent suit pending disposal of RFA No.120/2005, which has been f iled challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2005 passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No.33/2003 filed by the petitioner. It has been submit ted that the land involved in the subsequent suit being part of the land involve d in the earlier suit and both the parties are claiming decree in respect of the same land, there is a chance of passing conflicting decrees by two Courts and a s such the learned Court below ought to have allowed the application filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Referring to the impugned order date d 02.09.2006, it has been submitted by Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitio ner that it is not correct to say that the relief claimed in both the suits are distinct and different. Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, supporting the impugned order dated 02.09.2006 passed by the learne d Court below has submitted that in the subsequent suit being Title Suit No.5/20 06, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c ) apart from claiming the decree for right, title, interest and confirmation of possession in respect of 6 kathas 8 chattaks of land, which is part of 1 bigha 6 kathas of land involved in the earlier suit being Title Suit No.33/2003, has al so prayed for partition and for allotment of the shares to different shareholder s. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the nature of reliefs claimed in both the suits are different and hence no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in refusing to allow the application filed under Section 10 of the CPC. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. I have also perused the pla int filed in Title Suit No.33/2003 as well as the plaint filed in Title Suit No. 5/2006 apart from the impugned order passed refusing to allow the application fi led under Section 10 of the CPC. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner instituted the Title Su it No.33/2003 against the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent Nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) along with others for declaration of right, title and intere st in respect of the land measuring 1 bigha 6 kathas, the description of which h as already been noticed above. The said suit, however, was dismissed vide judgme nt and decree dated 01.03.2005 against which the present petitioner preferred RF A No.120/2005, which is presently pending before this Court. It is also evident from the pleadings in the plaint filed in Title Suit No.5/2006 that the plaintif f therein claimed right, title, interest and confirmation of possession apart fr om partition in respect of 6 kathas 8 chattaks of land, which is part of 1 bigha 6 kathas of land involved in the earlier suit being Title Suit No.33/2003. That being the position, the matter in issue in the subsequent suit bein g Title Suit No.5/2006 was also the matter in issue in Title Suit No.33/2003. Th e reliefs claimed in both the suits are substantially same. That apart there is a chance of passing conflicting decrees if the subsequent suit being Title Suit No.5/2006 is allowed to proceed till disposal of RFA No.120/2005. The said aspec t of the matter has not at all been considered by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order dated 02.09.2006. That being the position, the impugned order dated 02.09.2006 is set asid e. The further proceeding in Title Suit No.5/2006 is stayed till disposal of RFA No.120/2005, which is pending before this Court. The revision petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above. No cost .