IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1359 of 2009 Date of decision: 10.3.2009 Harinder Kaur ......Petitioner Versus Sh. Santokh Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Karanjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This revision petition has been filed by the defendants challenging the order dated 13.2.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar whereby application moved by the defendant-petitioner under Section 10 of the CPC for staying the suit has been dismissed. As per the averments made in this petition, the plaintiff- respondents filed the suit titled as “Santokh Singh and others v. Harinder Kaur”, for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering into their peaceful possession over the shops in dispute. It has been further averred that prior to filing of this suit, the plaintiff-respondents had also filed civil suit No.98 dated 27.11.2008 titled as “Mohinder Singh and others v. Jashandeep and another”, claiming the same relief against Jashandeep Singh and Punardeep Singh, who are real nephews of late husband of the petitioner. It has been further averred that since the relief claimed in the subsequent suit by the same plaintiffs was identical as in the earlier suit filed against aforesaid Jashandeep Singh and Punardeep Singh, who are real nephews of her husband and the family is joint, the application under Section 10 CPC for staying the proceedings in the subsequent suit filed by the petitioners has been rejected wrongly and the CR No.1359 of 2009 -2- impugned order is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. I find that while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, the trial Court has found that the defendants in both the suits are different and in fact the relief sought is also different in both the suits and actually the relief sought by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction in both the suits is against different defendants which, in its nature, is a relief in personem. In other words, the relief claimed by the plaintiffs in the other suit against the defendants of that case, the relief thereof granted, shall not apply to any other person or the defendant of the present case and the same binds only the parties to the suit. It may also be relevant to mention at this stage that in any case, if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that the defendants in earlier case are real nephews of her husband and they are joint, the petitioner is free to move necessary application for consolidation of both the cases. With the aforesaid observation, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. March 10, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE