IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OE CHHATTISGAR AT BILASPU w.r.227 Nag?) (20105.34 ~$§NGLE BENCH § Smt. Taré Devi Dubey, W/o Late Gouiri Shankar Dubey, aged' abofut 60 years, R/o Mahamaya Chowk, Sarkanda, Bilaspur , Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). PETITIONER DEFENDENT No. 2 -VERSUS : 1. Ajay Dubey, S/o Late Gouri Shankar Dubey, aged about 36 years, R/o Mahamaya Chowk, Sarkanda, Bilaspur , Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). Munna Lal @ Rajkumar Gupta, S/o Balmukund Gupta, aged about 44 years, R/o Gond Para, Tahsil 85 Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Sanchalak Swati Sweets, Mahamaya Chowk, Sarkanda, Bilaspur , Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). RESPONDENTS v“ ‘éwé’gtwyah w. H R x HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARH iA'r BILAS w P (227) No 231/2010 PETITIONER Smt. Tara DeV1 Dubey Versus RESPONDENTS Ajay Dubey and another ‘ - PRESENT — Shrl Subhash Yadav, Advocate for the petltloner Shrl Suresh Pandey, Advocate, for the respondent No l None appears for respondent No 2 though served o RAL o RD E R (2.1.—1-2011) The order dated 19—1 1-2009 passed bjl the 3rd Civil Judge Class II, Bila’spur whereby the petitioner’s application under Section 10 of C.P.C. has been dismissed, is under assa‘il in this petition. Facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are as under: ~ 2. The respondent No 1 herein instituted a suit onm 17—9— 2007 for declaration of title and injunction against th present pet1t10ner her son and daughter Whlch i pending cons1derat1on before the Dlstr1ct Judge Bilaspur Thereafter the respondent No 1 also instituted a su1 gainst one Munnalal on the bas1s of relat1onsh1p of landlOrd and tenant between him and Munnalal for eviction under the provisions of C.G. AccOmmodation ontrol Act. It is stated that the petitioner is also added as a defendant in the above suit. In the suit‘for eviction, the etitioner preferred an' application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for staying the suit on the ground that the suit filed by the respondent himself before the District Judge for declaration of title is earlier in the point of time and since o “the issues are identical, proceeding of this suit deserves t PUR SB: HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J e s t a C p e stayed V1de the 1mpugned orcjer the tr1a1 Court b d1sm1ssed the above apphcatlon Indisputably, the first suit which was preferred by the respondent No. 1 against the presentpetitiOner was a title suit and other. suit preferred by the' respondent No 1 agamst the tenant was an ev1ct10n sult Sect1on 10 of C P C reads as under - "1. Stayof suit.- “No court sh’all proceed with‘thev 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, or between. parties under whom they or any of‘ them claim litigating under the same title Where such suit isk pending in the same or any other court in India ‘ having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in i ’any court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.” i A bare perusal of. the above provision and the documents a: annexed with the petition would reveal that there is no similarity in the matter in issue, in the parties to the suit andithe relief claimed in both the suits. .Further, first suit I is altitle Suit and second suit is an eviction suit filed'by the same plaintiff inwhich defendants are different, cause of action and matters in issue are also different. In View of above, the trial court has'not committed any error in dismissing the petitioner’s application. The petition being devoid of substance deserves to be an is hereby dismissed. w 2 d