[2025:RJ-JP:10766] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5217/2022 Bajrang Lal Son Of Late Shri Govind Narayan, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Gram Chindauld Ka Mohalla, Kasba Fagi, Tehsil Fagi, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Prahlad Son Of Late Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Gram Chindauli Ka Mohalla, Kasba Fagi, Tehsil Fagi, District Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Shyojiram Son Of Late Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Gram Chindauli Ka Mohalla, Kasba Fagi, Tehsil Fagi, District Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Smt. Vimla Devi Wife Of Late Shri Ramniwas, Resident Of Gram Chindauli Ka Mohalla, Kasba Fagi, Tehsil Fagi, District Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Aasha Devi Daughter Of Late Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Gram Chindauli Ka Mohalla, Kasba Fagi, Tehsil Fagi, District Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Smt. Gekha Devi Wife Of Late Shri Govind Narayan, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of Gram Chindauli Ka Mohalla, Kasba Fagi, Tehsil Fagi, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Bairwa, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Mathur, Adv with Mr. Mukesh Joshi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 10/03/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.03.2022 passed by Civil Judge, Phagi, District [2025:RJ-JP:10766] (2 of 3) [CW-5217/2022] Jaipur in Case No.12/2022, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction against the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 to 5. After that, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents. So, relief sought in both the suits being similar, the petitioner filed an application under Section 10 CPC to the effect that the proceedings in the present suit be stayed but trial court vide order dated 07.03.2022 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. So, order passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner because neither parties nor relief sought in both the suits was same. So, the present civil writ petition filed by the petitioner being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, trial court had specifically observed that in both the suits relief neither parties were the same nor the suit for was the same. So, without interfering with the impugned order, the present civil writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a [2025:RJ-JP:10766] (3 of 3) [CW-5217/2022] direction to the trial court to decide both the suits simultaneously, in accordance with law without clubbing them. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /85