IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1623 of 2006 DEO NANDAN SINGH, Son of late Ram Pavitar Singh, resident of Mohalla-New Yarpur, P.S. – G.D.O., P.S.Gardanibah, District-Patna. Versus 1. MUNNA KUMAR, Son of late Budul Ram 2. Soni Kumar, Son of late Budul Ram 3. Chinta Devi, Wife of late Budul Ram. 4. Uma Devi, 5. Sima Kumari, both major daughter of late Budul Ram 6. Chhoti Kumari 7. Santoshi Kumari, both minor daughters of late Budul Ram --------------- For the petitionr: Mr. Ajay, Advocate For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Anish Chandra Singh, Adv. Mr. Tun Tun Kuamr, Adv. ---------- 4. 20.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. This revision application has been filed by the defendants against order dated 25.7.2006 passed by Sub- Judge-9 Patna in title suit No.42 of 2005 by which the learned Court below has rejected the petition of defendants filed under Section-10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of further proceeding of the suit in view of the pendency in T.A. No.5 of 2003 between the same parties relating to the same subject matter. The leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was already a suit between the parties in which the defendant was plaintiff who had claimed right, title and interest in the suit properties which was part and parcel of the residential house of the plaintiff and amalgamated portion of the plot No. 456 and Plot No.498.. The second relief sought for by the plaintiff in that suit was for ejectment of the defendants and for a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. In the plaint of that suit a pleading was made - 2 - that the defendant had encroached upon an area 28 feet into 12 feet of the said plot. Hence, upon declaration of the right, title and interest he had prayed for the ejectment. He has further submitted that earlier the title suit no.19 of 81 was decreed against which the present plaintiff in the suit filed title appeal, namely, 5 of 2003 which is still pending. He has further submitted that during the pendency of that appeal the plaintiff of the present suit filed title suit No.52 of 2005 for declaration of the right, title and interest in respect of the area of land 1 katha and 10 dhurs of the same two plots. Hence, the petitioner who is defendant in the present suit filed a petition under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of the present suit till the pendency of the appeal filed by the present plaintiff against the earlier judgment and decree. The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that relief sought for in the two suits are different and the area is also different and therefore, it cannot be said that in the two suits are directly or substantially the same and therefore the court below has rightly rejected the petition of the defendant/petitioner. From the impugned order, it appears that the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs were accepted by the court below and the ground that the relief sought for is different and the area of the suit property is also different, the petition of defendant/petitioner was rejected. The plaint of the two suits have been placed before me by the parties as well as judgment passed by the trial court in the - 3 - earlier suit, namely, title appeal No.19 of 1989. From the relief sought for in the two suits, it is apparent that right, title and interest has been sought to be declared in respect of the different areas of the same two plots, namely, plot no.456 and 458. Moreover, from the judgment of the learned trial court passed in suit No. 191 of 1989, it is clear that the right, title and interest of the plaintiff who is petitioner was declared in respect of that two plots, against which the present plaintiff/opposite parties has filed the appeal which is still pending. In these circumstances, it is apparent that in the interest of justice the proceeding in the present suit filed by the plaintiff opposite parties be stayed. In the circumstances, the order dated 25.7.2006 passed by the court below in title suit No.52 of 2005 is set aside and the petition of the defendant/petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed and the further proceeding in the suit is stayed till final disposal of the appeal of the plaintiff/Opposite parties, namely, title appeal No.5 of 2003. The revision application is thus allowed. (J.N. Singh, J.) Ravi/-