C.R. No. 3551 of 2005 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3551 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.8.2009 Udai Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Gurmail Singh & others ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate and Mr. Vaneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision is directed against the order dated 20.5.2005, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge ( Sr. Divn.), Sangrur vide which application moved by the petitioner for stay of suit for specific performance filed against Gopal Inder Singh has been ordered to be dismissed. Gurmail Singh, Daljit Singh and Harmit Singh filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell against one Gopal Inder Singh. Gopal Inder Singh died during the pendency of the suit, and his legal representatives were ordered to be brought on record. Waryam Singh etc. had filed a suit for declaration against one Sital Kaur and others claiming themselves to be owner in possession of the property and had also challenged the order passed by the learned Sub C.R. No. 3551 of 2005 2 Divisional Magistrate, Sangrur under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, therefore, sought that the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell be stayed till the disposal of appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in a suit for declaration. The learned trial Court dismissed the application by holding, that the matter in dispute is entirely different and have no bearing on each other. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that the impugned order cannot be sustained inasmuch as the subject matter in both the suits is same as the possession of the land, which is sought by way of specific performance is the same. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted, as pre-requisite for staying a suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that only subject matter but the parties should also be the same. The parties in both the suits are same, therefore, the learned trial Court was right in dismissing the application. No merit. Dismissed. 12.8.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE