C.R. No. 4260 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4260 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 4.09.2009 Dera Baba Jassa Singh ...Petitioner Vs. Lal Singh (D) through LRs. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Animesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision is directed against the order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Patiala vide which application moved by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) stands dismissed. The application moved by the petitioner under section 10 of the Code reads as under:- “1. That above mentioned case is fixed for today in this C.R. No. 4260 of 2008 2 Hon'ble Court. 2. That a Regular Second Appeal has been filed in the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2005 passed by Additional District Judge (Ad-hoc), Patiala. 3. That a perusal of pleadings of the parties and issues framed in the instant suit and the judgment dated 22.11.2005 shows that instant suit is liable to be stayed u/s 10 CPC because the mater in issue in the instant suit is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit culminating in the aforesaid judgment dated 22.11.2005. In the aforesaid earlier suit the present defendant was the plaintiff and Gurmat College, Patiala the defendant in the earlier suit is claiming under the plaintiff of the instant suit pending in this Hon'ble Court. In both suits Lal Singh is litigating under the same title i.e. as Mahant of the Institution. 4. That moreover aforesaid judgment dated 22.11.2005 is subjudice in the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in the RSA as mentioned above.” Reply to the application was field which reads as under:- “1. Para No.1 of the application needs no reply. 2. Para No.2 of the application is wrong and denied. No C.R. No. 4260 of 2008 3 document in support of the filing of the alleged RSA has been placed on the record of the case nor the stage of the proceedings in the alleged RSA has also been disclosed. 3. In reply to para No.3, it is submitted that the judgment of Shri S.S. Hundal, Sub Judge, Patiala was already tendered by the defendant in his evidence and the judgment passed by Shri B.S.Sidhu, PCS, Sub Judge dated 22.11.2005 has been tendered now. It is correct that these judgments have direct bearing on the case in hand and speaks of the fact that he plaintiffs have no case at all. 4. Para No.4 of the application is wrong and denied. When no RSA has been filed, so there is no question of matter being sub judice. Prayer is wrong.” Learned trial court has been pleased to dismiss the application by observing that the application under section 10 of the Code lacs material particulars, as no details of RSA were furnished. The learned trial court further held that the application also does not disclose in what manner decision of previously instituted suit was to operate res judicata, as admittedly parties in the previous suit are not the same as in the present suit. Without there being any positive averments, it cannot be accepted that the Principal, Gurmat College, Patiala was drawing title from the plaintiff herein, as contended. In order to succeed under section 10 of the Code, it is necessary C.R. No. 4260 of 2008 4 that issue in previous suit should be directly and substantially in issue in subsequent suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom any of them claim litigation under the same title, whether such suit is pending in the same court or any other court of competent jurisdiction. Learned court below rightly came to the conclusion that the application did not fulfill the parameter of section 10 of the Code. The court does not have any power to stay suit in exercise of powers under section 151 of the Code, in view of specific provisions of the Code i.e. Section 10 of the Code. No ground is made out which, may call for interference by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K.Sharma) 4.09.2009 Judge rp