IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.262 of 2022 a/w CMPMO No.134 of 2022 Decided on 18th September, 2025 CMPMO No.262 of 2022 Dr. Amar Singh Chandel and others …Petitioners Versus Smt. Vidya Devi and another …Respondents CMPMO No.134 of 2022 Sh. Bala Nand …Petitioner Versus Smt. Vidya Devi and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate, for petitioners No.1, 2(a) to 2(d) and 3, in CMPMO No.262 of 2022. Ms. Anu Tuli, Advocate, for the petitioner, in CMPMO No.134 of 2022. For the respondents: Mr. Mr. Harsh Khanna, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 4, in CMPMO No.262 of 2022 and respondents No.1 and 3, in CMPMO No.134 of 2022. Ms. Anu Tuli Advocate, for respondent No.2, in CMPMO No.262 of 2022. Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.4, 6, 7(a) to 7(c), 8 to 10. 2 Respondents No.3(a) to 3(d) are already ex parte vide order dated 27.06.2024. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Both these petitions have been filed against the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 23.09.2021, in terms whereof, the application filed by defendants No.4 to 10 under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed, however, direction has been issued for the consolidation of the suits, the same are being disposed of with the consent of the parties vide common order. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these petitions are as under:- 3. A suit for declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act has been filed by Bala Nand against Vidya Devi and Surinder Mohan Saini. This suit is registered as Civil No.51-1 of 2012. In the Civil Suit, an application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 by certain applicants for their impleadment on the ground that they were necessary party in the suit. The application was allowed and the applicants therein stand impleaded as defendants in the said Civil Suit. Thereafter, a subsequent Civil 3 Suit has been filed titled Amar Singh Chandel and others v. Vidya Devi i.e., Civil Suit No.83-1/2012. 4. The subsequent suit was filed by the parties who got themselves impleaded in the previous suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. After the institution of the subsequent Civil Suit, an application was filed in the earlier instituted Civil Suit under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code by the petitioners in CMPMO No.262 of 2022 namely Amar Singh Chandel and others. It was averred in the application filed under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code that as the impleadment of the applicants in the previous suit was after the institution of the subsequent suit filed by them, therefore, the date of institution of the earlier suit is to be construed as the date on which they were impleaded as defendants and, because, the earlier suit becomes the suit subsequently filed and as the issues involved in both the suits were the same, therefore, the proceedings in the earlier suit be stayed in terms of the provisions of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4 6. In terms of the impugned order, learned Trial Court has rejected this application by holding that in light of the fact that the suit filed by Bala Nand was instituted earlier in time, therefore, the same could not be stayed under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, thereafter, the application was disposed of by the learned Trial Court, in terms of the following reasons:- “Thus, in the light of the above reasons and findings, the present application for stay of this suit is dismissed as this suit is previously instituted suit, whereas, suit No.83-1 of 2012 is subsequently instituted suit. However, since the matter in issue in both the suits is substantially the same and the decision in present case would operate as res-judiate in the subsequent suit. Accordingly, in the interest of justice in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, unnecessarily delay, the subsequently instituted suit No.83-1 of 2012 is ordered to be consolidated with the present suit No.51-1 of 2012. Application stands disposed of. Be tagged with the main file for record after doing the needful.” 7. Whereas, the petitioners in CMPMO No.262 of 2022 are aggrieved by the fact that their application filed under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was not allowed, the petitioner in CMPMO No.134 of 2022 is aggrieved by the consolidation of the suits by the learned Court below. 5 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that as far as the adjudication by the learned Trial Court in the application filed under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code to the effect that the earlier filed suit could not be stayed is concerned, the said adjudication is correct and the same calls for no interference. 9. Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, reads as under:- “Thus, Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code comes into picture in case there are two civil suits pending, in which issue is directly and substantially the same and between the same parties and in these circumstances, the Court if satisfied that the requirements as are envisaged in Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code are fulfill stayed the subsequently instituted suits.” 10. Admittedly, herein the civil suit filed by Bala Nand was prior in time and the civil suit filed by Amar Singh Chandel and others was later in time. The contention of the application filed under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code that the date of institution of the earlier suit has to be construed as from the date when Amar Singh Chandel and others who had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 were impleaded as party cannot be accepted. De-hors the fact as to when a party is 6 impleaded as a defendant in a suit, fact of the matter will remain that the date of institution of the suit cannot be altered. 11. In light of this fact, obviously as the suit filed by Amar Singh Chandel and others was later in time as compared to the suit filed by Bala Nand, no application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was maintainable in the suit filed by Bala Nand. 12. In this backdrop, the findings returned in the orders under challenge with regard to the application filed under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code call for no interference and are upheld. As far as the findings returned in Para-15 of the impugned order are concerned, the same as agreed are modified to the effect that learned Trial Court shall hear both the cases alongwith each other, but separate evidence shall be recorded in both the cases so that the neither of the parties are prejudiced. 13. With these observations, these petitions stand disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 18, 2025 (Vinod)