IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 21887 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.10/2009 of PRL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- U.SURENDRA HEGDE, S/O.VENKATARAMANA HEDGE, PAYANGAYI PARAMBU, PANIYANKARA, P.O.KALLAI, CALICUT. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.ASOKAN, MR.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. JAGADEESHA, S/O.LATE VASUDEVA HEGDE, SHANTHIPALLA, KOIPADY, P.O.KUMBLA, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. BHAGIRATHI, S/O.LATE VASUDEVA HEGDE, KUNTANGERADKA, KOIPADY, P.O.KUMBLA, KASARAGOD TALUK. 3. DAMODARA, S/O.LATE VASUDEVA HEGDE, SHANTHIPALLA, KOIPADY, P.O.KUMBLA, KASARAGOD TALUK. 4. SAROJINI, D/O.LATE VASUDEVA HEGDE, KUNTANGERADKA KOIPADY, P.O.KUMBLA, KASARAGOD TALUK. 5. HEMAVATHI, D/O.LATE VASUDEVA HEGDE, PAYANGAYI PARAMBA, PANIYANKARA, KALLAI, CALICUT. Kss ..2/- ...2..... WPC.NO.21887/2009 O 6. MEENAKSHI, D/O.LATE VASUDEVA HEGDE, PAYANGAYI PARAMBA, PANIYANKARA, KALLAI, CALICUT. 7. RAMANI, D/O.LATE VASUDEVA HEGDE, NEERAMOOLA, KOTTOOR, MULIYAR, KASARAGOD. 8. SURENDRA, S/O.LATE VASUDEVA HEGDE, KUNTANGERADKA, KOIPADY, P.O.KUMBLA, KASARAGOD TALUK. 9. VASANTHA KUMAR, S/O.LATE VASUDEVA HEGDE, SHANTHIPALLA, KOIPADY, P.O.KUMBLA, KASARAGOD TALUK. 10. JAYAPALA, S/O.RAJAMANI, UNIVERSAL MILL, SHANTHIPALLA, KOIPADY, P.O.KUMBLA, KASARAGOD TALUK. R1 BY ADV. MR.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.21887/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.10/09 MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGODE DTD. 1/1/2009. P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 10TH DEFENDANT IN THE SUIT DTD. 25/05/2009. P3: COPY OF I.A.NO.1087/09 IN O.S.NO.10/09, MUNSIFF COURT,KASARAGODE DTD. 24/06/2009. P4: COPY OF I.A.NO.1087/09 IN O.S.NO.10/09 MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGODE DTD. 10/07/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21887 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the court below declining the request of the petitioner/10th defendant in O.S.No.10 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kasaragod to stay the trial of the suit under Section 10 of the CPC. Petitioner sought for a stay contending that in a previous suit filed by the 8th defendant in the suit as O.S.No.60 of 1996, identical and substantial issues covered by the present suit are involved and the decision rendered in that suit is under challenge in an appeal before the High Court and it is still pending for consideration and disposal. The application moved by the petitioner/10th defendant was resisted by the first respondent/plaintiff in the suit. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed the application for stay vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.21887 of 2009 - O 2 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issues involved in both the suits are substantially same and the decision to be rendered in the former suit which is now pending in appeal will foreclose any further enquiry in the present suit. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the previous suit related to only the quetion of setting aside a sale deed executed by the 8th defendant in favour of the 10th defendant which was decreed by the trial court and against the decision of which the defendant has preferred an appeal The present suit is one in respect of a partition of a larger extent of property involving the rights of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8 and the present plaintiff, it is submitted, was not a party in the previous suit and he is not bound by the decision in the earlier suit. Perusing Ext.P4 order, I find the court below has declined the request made by the petitioner for staying the suit noticing that no material was produced to sustain the application moved for that purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he should have been given an opportunity to produce W.P.(C).No.21887 of 2009 - O 3 documents to substantiate his case. I do not find any merit int he case. When a party has moved an application for staying the trial of the suit under Section 10 of the CPC, it is incumbent upon him to produce relevant documents to satisfy the court. I find no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P4 order. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-