1 2025:CGHC:11919 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 62 of 2025 Satyendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Mohan Singh Thakur Aged About 40 Years R/o - Mig-C/456, Ward No.45 Padmnabhpur, Durg ( C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dharmendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Mohan Singh Thakur Aged About 52 Years R/o - Mig-C/456, Ward No.45 Padmnabhpur, Durg ( C.G.). 2 - Shailesh Kumar Singh S/o Late Mohan Singh Thakur Aged About 30 Years R/o - Mig- C/456, Ward No.45 Padmnabhpur, Durg ( C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. SB : hon'ble shri justice deepak kumar tiwari Order on board 11.03.2025 1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Durg in Civil Suit No.87-A/2017, whereby, application filed by the applicant/defendant No.1 under Section 11 r/w Section 151 CPC has been rejected. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, at this juncture, this petition may be disposed of reserving the liberty in favour Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.03.12 10:44:40 +0530 2 of the petitioner to move appropriate application under Section 10 of the CPC to stay the subsequent suit as the appeal with similar subject matter is pending in connection with earlier suit. He submits that subject matter in both the suits is identical in nature. Learned counsel also places reliance in the judgment of Dr. Manish Rastogi Vs. Preetam Singh Kirar [2022 SCC OnLine MP 558] passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Petition No.2377/2021 and referred to Para 15 which reads thus:- "15. It would be apposite to reiterate the guidance of Apex Court as given in the case of Aspi Jal and Anr. Vs. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor, AIR 2013 SC 1712: “11. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that where a suit is instituted in a Court to which provisions of the Code apply, it shall not proceed with the trial of another suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. For application of the provisions of Section 10 of the Code, it is further required that the Court in which the previous suit is pending is competent to grant the relief claimed. The use of negative expression in Section 10, i.e. “no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit” makes the provision mandatory and the Court in which the subsequent suit has been filed is prohibited from proceeding with the trial of that suit if the conditions laid down in Section 10 of the Code are satisfied. The basic purpose and the underlying object of Section 10 of the Code is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of same cause of action, same subject matter and the same relief. This is to pin down the plaintiff to one litigation so 3 as to avoid the possibility of contradictory verdicts by two courts in respect of the same relief and is aimed to protect the defendant from multiplicity of proceeding. The view which we have taken finds support from a decision of this Court in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vrs. C.Parameshwara, (2005) 2 SCC 256 in which it has been held as follows: "8. The object underlying Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. The object underlying Section 10 is to avoid two parallel trials on the same issue by two courts and to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit. The language of Section 10 suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in the civil court and it cannot apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute. The object of Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res- judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in the previous instituted suit. The words “directly and substantially in issue” are used in contradistinction to the words “incidentally or collaterally in issue”. Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the 4 whole of the subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical." 3. Having regard to the submission of counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate dispose of this petition reserving the liberty in favour of the petitioner to move application under Section 10 of the CPC before the concerned trial Court. If any such application is moved, the concerned trial Court shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 4. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay