[2026:RJ-JP:1953] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 638/2026 Govind Goyal Son Of Ghoodmal Goyal, Aged About 57 Years, Suman Garments, Police Thana Near Nehru Park, Gangapur City, Resident Of Shivpuri Block-A, Ward No. 34, Gangapur City. ----Petitioner/Non-Applicant Versus Omprakash Son Of Ghoodmal Goyal, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Railway Station Road, Ward No. 22, Gangapur City. ----Respondent/Applicant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singhal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 16/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (Rent Tribunal), Gangapur City, whereby the application of the petitioner filed under Section 10 CPC in a case pending adjudication before the learned Rent Tribunal, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for partition was filed by the petitioner against the defendant with regard to a property. In that suit, reply was filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said suit was ultimately dismissed on 30.05.2025. He submits that against the said order, the first appeal is pending before the High Court in which an interim order is also operating. 3. Subsequently, in 2019, a suit came to be filed by the respondents for eviction of the petitioner from the disputed [2026:RJ-JP:1953] (2 of 2) [CW-638/2026] property. He submits that the issue involved in both the suit is common. Therefore, by exercising power under Section 10 CPC, the suit ought to have been stayed. He, therefore submits that the rejection of the application under Section 10 CPC is perverse illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. 3. Heard. 4. This Court finds that the earlier suit was for partition, which has been dismissed. In the suit for partition itself, there was a defense of the respondent herein that the petitioner is a tenant, since 1995. On account of tenancy, the suit has been filed in the year 2019 for recovery of possession before the learned Rent Tribunal. Thus, the provision of Section 10 CPC do not apply merely, on account of the fact that the property in dispute is common for the reason that the issues that are to be decided by the Court are different. 5. Therefore, this Court finds that no error so as to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. However, this Court has not opined with regard to the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as tenant and landlord, and the same shall be adjudicated by the learned Rent Tribunal in accordance with law. 7. With the above observations, the present civil writ petition stand disposed of. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Sudha/22