Civil Revision No. 6255 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6255 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.1.2011 Tejinder Kaur ......petitioner Versus Kuldeep Java and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.B.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Saurav Bajaj, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Karnal, whereby application moved by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short) was declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy in question was directly and substantially same in both the suits and hence, the later suit filed by Kuldeep Java was liable to be stayed. Section 10 CPC reads as under:- Stay of suit:.- No Court shall proceed with the trial of any Civil Revision No. 6255 of 2009 (O&M) 2 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 is pending in the same or any other Court in [India] having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of [India] established or continued by [the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before [the Supreme Court]. Explanation.—The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in [India] from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.” Learned trial Court, while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, in para Nos. 9 and 10, has held as under:- “9. In the present suit although the property in dispute (matter in issue) is directly and substantially the same as in the previous suit but the parties contesting the issue are different. The present plaintiff Kuldeep Java is claiming his title on the basis of inheritance being the only male legal heir of Shri Chetan Dass, whereas, Smt.Bimla was not a co-parcener at the time when Shri Chetan Dass suffered a decree in favour of Smt.Neelam Kumari. Therefore, she only had a remote right to inherit the Civil Revision No. 6255 of 2009 (O&M) 3 property of her father in case he died intestate. The ancestral nature of the suit property is in dispute and can only be decided by taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties. 10. As the parties in both the suits are not litigating under the same title (Kuldeep Java claiming inheritance from his father, whereas, Smt. Bimla Devi claiming her inheritance from her mother who was the owner of land measuring 158 kanal 1 Marla vide civil court decree of the year 1958 and mutation No.1845). Therefore, the present suit does not fall within the ambit of Section 10 CPC and is not liable to be stayed on that ground. Accordingly, the application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC stand dismissed.” The reasons given by the trial Court, while dismissing the application, are sound reasons. Although the property in dispute is same in both the suits but Kuldeep Java and Bimla Devi are claiming right in the property on separate pleadings. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to stay the suit filed by Kuldeep Java. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 07, 2011 anita Civil Revision No. 6255 of 2009 (O&M) 4