DWARIKA PRASAD versus RAMESHWAR DAYAL KHANDELWAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 16 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 17-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 599 
' 1 
DWARIKA PRASAD 
A 
v. 
RAMESHWAR DAYAL KHANDELWAL AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8408 of 2009) 
DECEMBER 17, 2009 
B 
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.) 
. ~ 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 10 and Or. 7, r. 11 -
Stay of suit - Respondent No. 1 filed civil suit against 
appellant - Application by appellant under Or. 7 r. 11 -
c 
Rejected by trial court - But further proceedings of the suit 
stayed by Supreme Court - On that basis, appellant filed 
application uls. 10 to stay proceedings of an earlier suit filed 
~ ) 
by respondent no. 1-App/ication u/s. 10 rejected by trial court 
- Justification of - Held: On facts, justified - Reasons 
D 
indicated in application uls. 1 O were a/so mentioned in 
app/icatio(I under Or. 7 r. 11 -
Those reasons were 
considered and after considering the matter in right 
perspective, application under Or. 7 r. 11 was rejected. 
Respondent No.1 filed civil suit against the appellant 
E 
Appellant filed application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC 
~ 
-\ 
and requested the Court to reject the plaint, as according 
to him, it did not disclose any cause of action. The 
application was rejected. But further proceedings of the 
F 
suit was stayed by the Supreme Court. On that basis, 
appellant filed an application under s. 10 CPC to stay the 
proceedings of an earlier suit filed by respondent no.1 
against the appellant. The trial court rejected the 
application under s.10 CPC. The order was upheld by the 
G 
' 
r 
High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court . 
599 
H 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R 
.... 
A 
HELD: On perusal of the application filed by appellant 
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it becomes clear that the 
appellant had referred to the pendency of the earlier suit 
and prayed to stay the same but the said application was 
dismissed. While rejecting the application under Order 7 
B Rule 11 CPC, it was noticed by the trial court that the suit 
filed earlier was at the stage of recording of evidence and 
the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed to 
~ . 
delay the proceedings of the suit. The reasons indicated 
in the application filed under s. 10 of the CPC were also 
c mentioned in the application filed by the appellant under 
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Those reasons were considered 
and after considering the matter in right perspective, the 
application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. 
Having regard to the reasons, which were indicated by 
D the trial court, the prayer of the appellant under s.10 CPC 
"' ~ 
could not be entertained. No ground has been made out 
to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the 
High Court. [Para 7) [603-E-H; 604-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
E 8408 of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2007 of the 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in Writ Petition 
.. 
No. 5073 of 2007. 
F 
Anoop G. Chaudhari, June Chaudhari, Prabhat Kumar Rai, 
Saud S.A. and Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Appellant. 
Sur.ii Gupta, T.N. Singh, K.K. Mohan and V.K. Singh for 
G the Respondent. 
1 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
J.M. PANCHAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
H 
DWARIKA PRASAD v. RAMESHWAR DAYAL 
601 
.• -1-
KHANDELWAL AND ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.] 
2. Challenge in this appeal by special leave is to the 
A 
judgment dated October 26, 2007, rendered by the High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Writ Petition No. 5073 
of 2007, by which the order dated July 23, 2007, passed by 
the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit 
No. 35-A of 2006 rejecting the application filed by the appellant 
B 
under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the 
. ~ 
suit, is confirmed. 
3. The relevant facts, which emerge from the record of the 
case are as under: 
c 
The respondent No. 1 herein is the original plaintiff. He has 
filed suit to declare that Sale Deed dated July 12, 2004 
executed by the appellant and original defendants Nos. 2 and 
.... J. 
3 in favour of original defendant No. 4 is invalid and illegal. He 
has also prayed the court to injunct the appellant and original 
D 
defendants Nos. 2 and 3 from alienating the ancestral suit 
property. In the plaint it is stated that the property in dispute 
belonged to his father and the appellant as well as grandfather 
of the original defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and defendants Nos. 5 
to 8. According to the plaint Ghisalal, who was owner of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.