CW-1454/08-Smt. Anita Khatri & Anr. Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Judgment dt.14.9.09 1/4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1454/2008 Smt. Anita Khatri & Anr. Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Date of order : 14th September, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Dr. Sachin Acharya for the petitioners. Mr. Vijay Jain ) for the respondents. Mr. D.S. Rajvi ) ------- 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner-defendants have challenged the impugned order dated 7.2.2008 whereby the application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. filed by these defendants was rejected by the learned trial court. 2. The petitioner-defendants have submitted that their suit No.40/2007, a copy of which has been placed as Annex.6 filed against the Nagar Palika, Hanumangarh, is to the effect that they will not remove the water drainage outside their house for drainage of dirty water and the subsequent suit filed by the respondents No.1 and 2, Vijay Kumar and Raj Kumar claiming similar relief from the said CW-1454/08-Smt. Anita Khatri & Anr. Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Judgment dt.14.9.09 2/4 Court and, therefore, such subsequent suit filed by the respondents deserves to be stayed in accordance with Section 10 of C.P.C. 3. The said subsequent suit filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 namely suit No.31/2007, Vijay Kumar and another against Nagar Palika, Hanumangarh and present petitioners being also defendants No.2 and 3 namely Anita Khatri and Amar Nath, the relief claimed in the said suit is that the Municipal Council, Hanumangarh may remove all encroachment made by the various residents of Sector No.9 of the said town. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants submits that the said suit is substantially for the same relief which has been claimed by the defendant-petitioners in the suit earlier instituted namely suit No.40/2007 – Arvind Kumar Vs. Nagar Palika and others and, therefore, the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the application under Section 10 of C.P.C. 5. On the side opposite, Mr. Vijay Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that on an ex-facie reading of CW-1454/08-Smt. Anita Khatri & Anr. Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Judgment dt.14.9.09 3/4 the reliefs claimed in two suits it would transpire that the relief claimed in both the suits is of different nature and in the suit No.31/2007 filed in the same Court, the plaintiffs have prayed for removal of encroachment by all the residents of Sector No.9 including the defendants No.2 and 3, Anita Khatri and Amar Nath, who are plaintiffs in the earlier suit namely Suit No.40/2007. 6. Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the record of the case, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial court has not erred in rejecting the application under Section 10 of C.P.C. As stated above, the reliefs claimed in both the suits though may involve the same area, is of different nature moreover since the parties are residing in the same area and the plaintiffs in the so called subsequent suit have also interest in the removal of the so called encroachments by the residents of Sector No.9 including the defendants No.2 and 3, the present petitioners cannot say that the subsequent suit is filed for same relief. 7. In view of this, while disposing of this writ petition without interfering with the impugned order dated 7.2.2008, the CW-1454/08-Smt. Anita Khatri & Anr. Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Judgment dt.14.9.09 4/4 learned trial court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hanumangarh is directed to consolidate the two suits in question and try the same together. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed. No costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.17 babulal/