SBCWP No.477/2009 Usha Munjal & Anr Vs. Smt. Pravin Katariya & Anr. -1- SBCWP No.477/2009 Usha Munjal & Anr Vs. Smt. Pravin Katariya & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 28.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, for the petitioners. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioner application filed under Section 10 CPC was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 18.12.2008. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under : - “In the present application the suit no. of the case Sameer Munjral Vs. Balwant Singh & Other has not been mentioned no. certified copies if the pleadings of the previously instituted has been filed before this Court. In the absence of the aforementioned relevant record, the court cannot conclude as to the matter in during & substantially in issue in both the suits as the same. Similarly no opinion can be expressed as to the parties litigating in both the suits.” From above observation of the trial court it is clear that the application of the petitioner filed under Section 10 SBCWP No.477/2009 Usha Munjal & Anr Vs. Smt. Pravin Katariya & Anr. -2- CPC was not with full particulars and it may be with wrong particulars and there was no pleadings of other case on record and, therefore, the trial court observed that in absence of above particulars and the relevant record, the court cannot conclude the matter involved in two suits contains the identical, same or substantial same issues. The trial court also clearly observed that no opinion can be expressed as to the stand of the parties litigating in both the suits. From above it is clear that petitioners' application was dismissed as an application filed without sufficient material particulars and documents. Substantially, the petitioner's application has not been rejected on merits but has been rejected became of application being defective. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even the written statements have not been filed in both the suit. In that situation, the court cannot know the issue involved in the suit. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 18.12.2008. Hence, the writ petition SBCWP No.477/2009 Usha Munjal & Anr Vs. Smt. Pravin Katariya & Anr. -3- of the petitioner is dismissed. However, the petitioner if will make out a case by filing proper application with material particulars, then the trial court may consider the application and may decide the petitioners' application in accordance with law. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-