The Bombay High Court clarifies that a subsequent civil suit filed on a different cause of action, though related to some common property, cannot be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC merely because the parties are the same; instead, such suits may be clubbed and tried together. This judgment affirms established principles and provides authoritative guidance for subordinate courts on the scope of stay and clubbing of suits.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/622/2020 of SUREKHA PARMESHWAR PATIL AND OTHERS Vs MALANBAI ATMARAM PATIL AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HCBM030509322019 |
| Date of Registration | 10-01-2020 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. M. JOSHI |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Aurangabad Bench) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts within Bombay High Court jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Section 10 CPC – Stay of Suit) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a civil suit involving an independent cause of action, though involving some common parties and property, can be stayed under Section 10 CPC, or should be clubbed and tried together. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners’ suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 59/2019) was stayed by the trial court on the ground of Section 10 CPC, as there was an earlier suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 26/2019) filed by the Respondents regarding related property. The two suits involved different causes of action and independent reliefs. The trial court opined that the Petitioners could have filed a counterclaim, but the High Court held that this did not bar an independent suit. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and legal practitioners dealing with Section 10 CPC matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that Section 10 CPC cannot be used to stay a civil suit where the cause of action is different, even when some properties and parties overlap.
- The appropriate course is to direct clubbing and joint trial of related suits, rather than staying the latter suit.
- Observations by the trial court concerning possible counterclaims do not extinguish the right to bring an independent suit on a different cause of action.
- This judgment is a clear precedent on the interpretation and limits of Section 10 CPC in the context of multiplicity of proceedings with overlapping subject matter.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court noted that Section 10 CPC bars simultaneous trial only where the “matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in both suits between the same parties litigating under the same title.
- In this case, the court expressly found that the subsequent suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 59/2019) involved a different cause of action for injunction, though relating to one property involved in the earlier suit.
- The trial court’s view that the Petitioners could have filed a counterclaim does not deny their substantive right to file an independent suit.
- Clubs both suits for joint trial rather than staying the subsequent suit, ensuring expeditious justice and opportunity for evidence in both suits.
- The decision set aside the trial court’s order and directed the suits to be decided together.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners:
- The trial court’s observation about possibility of a counterclaim shows the relief in the present suit is independent of the earlier suit.
- The cause of action for the subsequent suit is different; hence, Section 10 CPC does not apply.
Respondents:
- Supported the order of the trial court staying the suit under Section 10 CPC.
Factual Background
The dispute involved two civil suits between largely the same parties concerning property. The Respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No. 26/2019. The Petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 59/2019 for injunction relating to one property involved in the earlier suit but based on a different cause of action. The trial court stayed Regular Civil Suit No. 59/2019 under Section 10 CPC, observing that the Petitioners could have filed a counterclaim. This order was challenged before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was the primary provision discussed.
- The court analyzed the extent to which Section 10 CPC empowers the court to stay a subsequent suit.
- The decision clarifies that Section 10 applies only when “matter in issue” is directly and substantially the same and parties are litigating under the same title.
- Reliefs based on distinct causes of action are not subject to stay under Section 10, but suits may be clubbed for joint hearing to avoid conflicting judgments.
Procedural Innovations
- Directed that both suits be clubbed and tried together, ensuring all parties have an opportunity to lead evidence in both proceedings.
- Expeditious disposal of both suits directed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms established principles regarding stay of suits under Section 10 CPC and provides clear procedural guidance for clubbing suits with overlapping parties/properties but independent causes of action.