IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 23, 2010 Civil Revision No. 5986 of 2010 Surinder Singh …Petitioner Versus Gulzar Singh and another. … Respondents Civil Revision No. 5991 of 2010 Surinder Singh …Petitioner Versus Gulzar Singh and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Mandeep S. Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for the caveator-respondent No.1. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.08.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar, whereby learned Civil Judge rejected the application C.R. No. 5986 of 2010 moved by the defendant – petitioner herein for staying the proceedings of the suit under Section 10 C.P.C. The brief facts of the present case are that Surinder Singh claiming himself to be an adopted son of Baj Singh, has filed suit for declaration to the effect that Surinder Singh be declared owner in possession of the property in dispute. That suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 67 of 2003 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar. During the pendency of the suit, Gurdip Kaur sole defendant died and her legal representatives Gulzar Singh and Joginder Kaur were substituted. That previously instituted suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.04.2008, however, appeal therefrom is pending before the Court of District Judge, Jalandhar. Meanwhile, legal representatives – Gulzar Singh and Joginder Kaur filed subsequent suit against Surinder Singh for possession, as well as for recovery of certain amount as the value of the crops, which allegedly Surinder Singh has taken away from the property in dispute. In the subsequent suit, petitioner herein moved an application under Section 10 C.P.C. requesting the Court to stay the proceedings of the subsequently instituted suit. Learned Trial Court has dismissed the application vide impugned order, hence, present petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 C.R. No. 5986 of 2010 Undisputedly, Surinder Singh has instituted previous suit for declaration and injunction claiming himself to be owner in possession of the property. Undisputedly, legal representatives of Gurdip Kaur have instituted subsequent suit for possession and for recovery of amount against Surinder Singh. Undisputedly, in the previously instituted suit and subsequently instituted suit, the main issue is as to whether Surinder Singh is the owner in possession of the property being adopted son of Baj Singh. Undisputedly, subject matter and parties to the suits are the same. This is settled position of law, if subject matter, parties and issue are the same and judgment passed in previously instituted suit shall be a res judicata in a subsequent instituted suit, then subsequently instituted suit must be stayed under Section 10 C.P.C. to avoid conflicting views. For the reasons discussed herein above, present petition is allowed. Application moved by the petitioner under Section 10 C.P.C. is allowed. Proceedings of the suit shall remain stayed during the pendency of the First Appeal. However, learned Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal itself at its own merit, within three months from the date of certified copy of this order is placed before the learned Appellate Court. 3 C.R. No. 5986 of 2010 A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the connected matters. September 23, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 4