1 CGHC010321282026 2026:CGHC:38759 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1118 of 2026 Praveen Kumar Singh S/o Dr. T.N. Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Lodhipara, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Purnima Singh Garewal W/o Late Jashbir Singh Garewal Aged About 59 Years R/o, Geetanjali Park Mangla Chowk, P.S. - Civil Line, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Nirmal Singh Garewal S/o Jashbir Singh Garewal Aged About 30 Years R/o, Geetanjali Park Mangla Chowk, P.S. - Civil Line, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Gajpal Singh Garewal S/o Late Jashbir Singh Garewal Aged About 25 Years R/o, Geetanjali Park Mangla Chowk, P.S. - Civil Line, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Of Bilaspur, District And Tehsil Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Isha Jajodia, P.L. for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 01/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.03 10:50:11 +0530 2 filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 15.07.2026 passed by learned XIth District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. A/42/2025, whereby an application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Section 10 of the CPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 31A/2022, which has been filed on 24.01.2022 against the defendants for specific performance of the contract dated 09.03.2020, 01.06.2020 and 09.11.2020. In the said civil suit, the defendants remained ex-parte, and subsequently, they filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 29.10.2022 on 22.09.2025. He would further submit that subsequently, the defendants in Civil Suit No. 31A/2022 has filed a separate suit for rescission of the contract dated 09.03.2020, 01.06.2020, and 09.11.2020, vacant possession of the suit property and also for mesne profit and permanent injunction. The suit property and the issue in both these suits are one and same. The suit filed by the defendants of Civil Suit No. 31A/2022 is registered as Civil Suit No. A/42/2025. The suit filed by the present petitioner is pending before learned IIIrd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bilaspur whereas the civil suit filed by the present respondents is pending before the learned XIth District Judge, Bilaspur. He would further submit that in the civil suit filed by the present respondents pending before the learned XIth District Judge, Bilaspur, the petitioner filed an application under Section 10 of the CPC for staying the further proceedings of the case as the same is the subsequent suit having directly and substantially involve the issue 3 which has also been involved in the previously instituted suit filed by the present petitioner. The suit property, issue, subject matter is the agreement dated 09.03.2020, 01.06.2020 and 09.11.2020 are the subject matter of both the suits, therefore, the proceedings of the subsequent suit is required to be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC. 4. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner considering that the prayer made in both the suits are not identical, therefore, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. He would further submit that there may be possibility of two conflicting judgments in both the suits and to avoid the multiplicity of litigation and avoid conflicting judgments, the further proceeding of the subsequent suit, that is, suit filed by the present respondents, may be stayed and the impugned order may be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. The petitioner has filed a copy of the plaint of Civil Suit No. 31A/2022 in which he prayed the following reliefs: “1. प्रतिवादीगण को उनको द्वारा तिकोये गये संतिवादी/इकोरारानमा दिदीनको (09.03.2020, 01.06.2020 एंवा 09.11.2020) को अनसंरा उनको पक्ष को पलन कोरा हुये शेष राकोग 45,000/- प्रप् कोरा वादी माकोन को" राजि$स्ट्री वादी को पक्ष मा' कोराई $वा'। 2. येदिदी प्रतिवादीगण वादीमाकोन को" राजि$स्ट्री वादी को पक्ष मा' नही+ कोरा' न्येयेलये को माध्येमा सं वादी को पक्ष मा' वादीमाकोन को" राजि$स्ट्री कोराई $वा' 3. येदिदी संतिवादी को तिवातिनर्दिदी/ष्ट पलन संभवा न ही वादी को प्रतिवादीगण सं इकोरारानमा को अनसंरा प्रप् तिकोये गये राकोमा 9,55,000/- न2 लख पचपन ही$रा रू प्रप् दिदीनको सं 12/- प्रतिवाष6 को ब्ये$ को" दीरा सं दिदीलई $वा'। 4. संतिवादी/इकोरारानमा को अपन पक्ष को पलन नही+ कोरान को कोराण 4 उचिच प्रतिकोरा वादी को प्रतिवादीगण सं दिदीलई $वा9। 5. वादी को वादी व्यये प्रतिवादीगण सं दिदीलई $वा। 6. येही कोई संहीये एंवा अनशे $ मानन+ये; न्येयेलये वादी को प्रतिवादीगण सं दिदीलये $न उचिच संमाझे दिदीवाई $वा'" 7. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the plaint of the Civil Suit No. A/42/2025, has been filed by the present respondents in which they claimed the following reliefs: "अ- इकोरारानमा दिदीनको 09.03.2020 को शे=न्ये हीन घोतिष तिकोये $ये था इकोरारानमा दिदीनको 01.06.2020 एंवा 09.11.2020 को अवा@ध, को= टराचिच एंवा फ$D हीन घोतिष तिकोये $ये। ब- मा2$ संराकोण्डा लध+परा, प.ही.न. 20, हीसं+ल वा जि$ल तिबलसंपरा स्थिI खसंरा नबरा 1085/61 राकोब 0.01 एंकोड़ (440 वाग6फ ट) अवास्थिI ही@ जि$सं परा पक्को माकोन बन हुआ ही@, को रिराक् आधिधपत्ये प्रतिवादी को. 01 सं वादीगण को दिदीलये+ $ये। सं- वादीगण को प्रतिमाही 10,000/- क्षतिप=र्ति/ राचिशे/ माध्येवाD लभ स्वारूप प्रतिवादी को. 01 सं दिदीनको 24.11.2021 सं वादी माकोन को वास्तिवाको कोब्$ प्रप्तिप् दिदीनको को को दिदीलये+ $ये। दी- प्रतिवादी क्रमाको 01 को Iये+ तिनषधज्ञा द्वारा वादी माकोन परा वादीगणT को कोब्$ मा' दीखलदी$+ कोरान सं तिनषधिध तिकोये $ये। इ- वादी व्यये एंवा अधिधवाक् शेल्को दिदीलये+ $ये। ई- अन्ये अनष $ मानन+ये न्येयेलये उचिच संमाझे वाही दिदीलये+ $ये।" 8. The petitioner is claiming that the subject matter in issue, suit property, and claim of the respective parties are directly and substantially involved in both the suits, are one and same, and therefore, while invoking the provisions of Section 10 of the CPC, the proceeding of subsequent suit shall be stayed as the subsequent suit has been filed on 03.04.2025 and the petitioner's suit has been filed on 24.01.2022. There is no dispute with respect to the competency of the Court where both the suits are being filed and pending for its consideration. Since 5 the claim of the petitioner is founded on Section 10 of the CPC, it is necessary to notice here the provisions of Section 10 CPC, which reads as under: “10. Stay of suit.— No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.” 9. From examination of both the plaints filed by the respective parties, it transpires that the present petitioner, who has filed the Civil Suit No. 31A/2022, claimed the enforcement of the alleged agreement dated 09.03.2020, 01.06.2020, and 09.11.2020 and claimed for specific performance of the contract; whereas the present respondents, who are the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. A/42/2025, claimed rescission of the contract dated 09.03.2020, 01.06.2020, 09.11.2020 and also claiming vacant possession, mesne profit and permanent injunction in the suit. Since the claim of both the parties are contradictory, it cannot be said that two parallel litigations in respect of same cause of action and same subject matter and the same relief pending before two different Courts having jurisdiction to try the suit. Here, the suit filed by the petitioner is for specific performance of the contract, whereas suit filed by the respondents are rescission of the contract, which cannot be said to be the two parallel litigations with respect to the same cause of action and same relief. 10. From perusal of the order impugned, it further transpires that the 6 learned Trial Court, while relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, (2005) 2 SCC 256, observed that the expression “matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit” is to be contrasted with the expression “incidentally or collaterally in issue”. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 11. After having gone through the entire pleadings of the parties in both the suits and the order passed by learned trial Court, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner it at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy for consolidation of both the suits in appropriate proceeding. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit