1. Challenge is made to the order passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit 46 of 2008 by passing an order in application preferred vide Exh. 15 dated 19th January 2011.
2. The Court passed common order on applications preferred vide Exh. 14 and
15. It is at the outset submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that ad interim relief granted in favour of the present petitioner has been vacated by an order below Exh. 14 which has been separately challenged before the Appellate Court.
2.1 However, the order of staying the suit passed below Exh. 15 is challenged in the present petition.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has urged that as there is no alternative efficacious remedy this petition preferred. He also urged that both the sides of Regular Civil Suit No. 172/02006 and 46 of 2008 can be directed to be proceeded simultaneously. He further consented that there is no harm in trying both the suits. He admitted that both the suits are of partition of the same property and one of the respondents nos 8 has not been impleaded in the earlier suit on the ground that she has foregone her right.
4. On examining the material on record and perusing the documents it can be seen that the Court has after detailed reasonings chose to stay subsequently filed suit being Suit No. 46 of 2008. It can also be noted that all the important points of facts and law contained in applications preferred for staying the suit as well as the vital facts emerging on the record have been aptly dealt with. The trial Court is of the opinion that the issues arising in both the matters are substantial and materially identical. Suit relates to the partition of the property between the same parties subsequent suit having been preferred by the present petitioner by not disclosing the true facts made the Court vacate the order granted in favour of the petitioner herein against which separate challenge is made before the Appellate forum and therefore, this Court chooses not to deal with that aspect.
5. On reading of the plaint and issues raised in both the suits the trial court has rightly concluded staying of the suit. There is no error nor any illegality in the impugned order. On appropriate appreciation of factual and legal issues which are essentially and materially identical subsequently filed suit for the very same property is rightly stayed.
6. Request of learned advocate made in this petition for proceeding before the same Court simultaneously without consolidating the suit cannot be acceded to, as there is no flaw in the reasonings given by the Court. This petition is devoid of merits and stands disposed of accordingly.
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani,J.) mary// Top