Sanjeev Kumar vs Bhura Singh @ Ravinder Singh And Others

CR-5883-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
152 CR-5883-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.11.2026
Sanjeev Kumar
....Petitioner
Vs.
Bhura Singh @ Ravinder Singh and others
....Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*
HARSH BUNGER J.
Present civil revision petition has been filed seeking setting
aside of the order dated 01.05.2026 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Budhlada, whereby an application submitted by the
petitioner under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC, for staying the
proceedings in the counter-claim filed by respondent No.1 (Bhura Singh) has
been dismissed.
2. Briefly, the respondent No.1 (Bhura Singh) filed a suit for
permanent injunction against the present petitioner (Sanjeev Kumar) as well
as the proforma respondents herein. Apart from the present petitioner
(Sanjeev Kumar) and proforma respondents, the suit was also filed against
several other persons, wherein the following prayer had been made:-
“Suit for Permanent Injunction restraining with respect to
agricultural land measuring 24 Kanal 12 Marle, comprised in
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5883-2026 (O&M) -2-
rectangle (Mustatil) and Killa Numbers 47//3 (8-0), 4/1 (1-0),
8/1 (1-11), 48//2/1 (5-0), 2/2 (2-10), 9/1 (5-11), 47//4/1/2 (0-10),
48//2/1/1 min South (0-10) Khewat/Khatauni Numbers
2357/4847 to 4849, as per Jamabandi for the year 2022-23,
situated within the revenue estate of Budhlada, tehsil Budhlada.
Wherein the Plaintiff, the defendants, and other co-sharers are
joint owners in joint possession and which has not been
partitioned to date. The Plaintiff has already filed a partition
application titled Bhura Singh etc. vs. Bharbhur Singh etc. in
the Revenue Court of Budhlada which is fixed for hearing on
14-03-2025 (Copy of partition application is annexed as Mark
PA). The disputed land is cultivable agricultural land. The
defendants must refrain from forcibly or illegally raising any
construction or changing the nature of the suit land in any
manner during the pendency of the partition application.”
2.1 The aforesaid suit came to be registered as CS-96-2025.
2.2 Subsequently, the present petitioner along with the proforma
respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent No.1
(Bhura Singh), wherein the following relief had been sought:-
“It is therefore respectfully prayed that a Decree for
Permanent injunction to the effect that the plaintiffs are joint
owner of land measuring 79 Kanal 10 Marlas 2.94 Sarsai
comprising rect. & Killa no. 47//4/2(7-0) 5/2min(0-5) 8/2(6-3)
13/1(1-7) 15/1min(0-0-0.40) 17(7-19) 48//11minB(4-5)
47//6/2/2(1-4) 5/1min(1-19) 7(8-0) 14min(7-12) 5/2min(0-7)
15/1min(3-6) 16(1-6) 48//11/2(0-11) 20/2(1-16)20/3(2-
7)49//5/1 min(0-5)48// 20/2 (3 - 13) 47 // 14 min(0 – 8) 5/1(1-4)
6/2/3(0-7) 5/2min(0-8) 15/1min(0-17) 6/1/2(0-5) 15/2min(0-3)
48///10/2min(2-18) 11min south (3-4) 47//6/1/1(0-7) 48
//10/1(5-2) 6/2/1(1-7-3.60) 6/2/1(0-7-5.40) 16min(0-6-8.82)
16min(0-6-8.82) 16min (0-6-8.82) 16(0-6-8.82) 16min (0-6-
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5883-2026 (O&M) -3-
7.92) 16min(0-5-2.43) 16min(0-15) 16min south(0-3-3.78)
16min(0-6-7.29) 17/2(0-1) bearing khewat No. 2359 Khatoni
no. 4851 to 4877 vide Jamabandi for the year 2022-2023
situated at Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
Plaintiffs colonizing the area of rect. Killa no. 47//4/2(6-3.46)
8/2(4-5.55) 13/1(0-17.69) 5/1min(0-14.46) 7(8-0) 14min(5-
5.26) 15/1min(0-9) 6/2/1min(0-2.15) total 25 Kanal 17.57
Marlas of their owner in possession out of above said land with
the name Balaji Developers & Builder Budhlada i.e. plaintiff
and the said colony has been conditionally approved and
sanctioned by the competent authority after completing the
formalities. The defendant has no concern with the ownership
and possession of the above said land and colonize area of the
plaintiffs. The Defendant wants to interfere into the legally
construction work of said colony and wants to disturb the
peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and wants to dispossess the
plaintiff form this land, illegally and forcibly out of above land.
Defendant be restrained to do so, be passed in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant. Any other relief to which the
plaintiff may be deemed fit may also be granted to the
plaintiff.”
3. In the aforesaid suit filed by the present petitioner and proforma
respondents, respondent No.1 (Bhura Singh) appeared and filed his
counter-claim (Annexure P-6), wherein the following relief has been
sought:-
“Counter-Claim for Permanent Injunction regarding the
uncultivable (Gair Mumkin) land measuring 1 Kanal under
Musatil and Kila numbers: 47//4/1 min (0-10), 48//2/1 (0-10),
situated in the revenue estate of Budhlada, tehsil, Budhlada,
which is part of Khewat Number 2357 but the Plaintiffs /
Respondents must refrain from raising any kind of construction
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5883-2026 (O&M) -4-
under the guise of their lawsuit and without the consent of the
Defendant / Claimant, changing the nature of the said 1 Kanal
land and developing a colony.”
4. During the course of proceedings in the aforesaid suit as well as
the counter-claim, the petitioner filed an application under Section 10 read
with Section 151 CPC, seeking staying of counter-claim proceedings by
stating that the matter in issue in the earlier suit (CS-96-2025) as well as in
the counter claim are directly and substantially the same and between the
same parties and also the same cause of action.
4.1 The present respondent No.1 – Bhura Singh opposed the
aforesaid application.
5. The learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 01.05.2026
(Annexure P-9), dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under
Section 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC, for staying the counter-claim
proceedings. The relevant extract of the order dated 01.05.2026
(Annexure P-9) reads as under:-
“8. In the present case, the plaintiffs have sought stay of the
counter-claim filed by the defendant. A counter-claim is not an
independent subsequently instituted suit in the strict sense but is
treated as a cross-suit within the same proceedings so as to
enable the Court to adjudicate the entire dispute between the
parties in a comprehensive manner. The purpose of permitting
counter-claims under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC is itself to avoid
multiplicity of litigation and to settle all disputes between the
parties in one proceeding.
9. Now, from the record, it appears that the defendant has
indeed filed Civil Suit No. CS/96/2025 titled Bhura Singh vs. Dr.
Chander Lakha and others. However, the counter-claim filed in
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5883-2026 (O&M) -5-
the present proceedings relates to the land allegedly in
possession of the defendant measuring 1 Kanal comprised in
Musteel and Killa No. 47//4/1 min (0-10) and 48//2/1 (0-10).
The defendant has also relied upon earlier civil proceedings
and revenue record in support of his possession over the said
land. At this stage, it cannot be conclusively held that the
matters in issue in both proceedings are directly and
substantially identical so as to attract the bar contained under
Section 10 CPC.
10. Moreover, staying the counter-claim at this stage would
defeat the very object of the provisions relating to
counter-claims which are intended to avoid multiple litigations
and enable the Court to decide all rival claims between the
parties in the same proceedings. The plaintiffs have also not
demonstrated that continuation of the counter-claim would
cause any irreparable prejudice which cannot be addressed
during the trial of the suit.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the essential ingredients for invoking
Section 10 CPC are not satisfied in the present case and no
ground is made out for staying the proceedings of the
counter-claim.
12. Consequently, the present application filed under Section
10 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of proceedings of the
counter-claim is hereby dismissed .”
6. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed the present civil
revision petition before this Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and perused the paperbook with his able assistance.
8. The short question which arises for consideration before this
Court is as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5883-2026 (O&M) -6-
proceedings in the counter-claim filed by defendant No.1 in CS-437-2025
are liable to be stayed under Section 10 CPC, in view of the pendency of the
previously instituted suit bearing CS-96-2025.
9. At the outset, it would be gainful to refer to 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 having
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.
Explanation.— The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does
not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on
the same cause of action.”
10. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision it is evident that
where a suit is instituted in a court to which provisions of the Code apply, it
shall not proceed with the trial of another suit in which the matter in issue is
also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between
the same parties. For application of the provisions of Section 10 of the Code,
it is further required that the Court in which the previous suit is pending is
competent to grant the relief claimed. The use of negative expression in
Section 10 of the Code i.e. "no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit"
makes the provision mandatory and the court in which the subsequent suit
has been filed is prohibited from proceeding with the trial of that suit if the
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5883-2026 (O&M) -7-
conditions laid down in Section 10 of the Code are satisfied. The basic
purpose and the underlying object of Section 10 of the Code is to prevent the
courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and
adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of same cause of action,
same subject-matter and the same relief. This is to pin down the plaintiff to
one litigation so as to avoid the possibility of contradictory verdicts by two
courts in respect of the same relief and is aimed to protect the defendant
from multiplicity of proceeding [see Aspi Jal and Another v. Khushroo
Rustom Dadyburjor, (2013) 4 SCC 333 ].
10.1 The four essential conditions for the application of section 10
CPC are (i) that the matter in issue in the second suit is also directly and
substantially is issue in the first suit (ii) that the parties in the second suit are
the same or parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under
the same title (iii) that the court in which first suit is instituted is competent
to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit and (iv) that the previous
instituted suit is pending. If above conditions fulfill, the court in which a
subsequent suit is instituted, is prohibited from proceeding with its trial in
certain specified circumstances; however, when the scope of enquiry in the
two proceedings is different, subsequent proceeding cannot be stayed.
10.2 It is equally well settled that mere similarity of the nature of
relief sought, existence of certain common facts or overlapping of the
subject matter would not, by itself, attract the provisions of Section 10 CPC.
11. When the facts of the present case are examined on the
touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the essential
requirements for invoking Section 10 CPC are not satisfied. A perusal of the
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5883-2026 (O&M) -8-
pleadings reveals that CS-96-2025 was instituted by respondent No.1-Bhura
Singh against the present petitioner and fourteen other defendants, seeking
permanent injunction in respect of joint land measuring 24 Kanal-12 Marlas,
restraining the defendants from raising construction or changing the nature
of the said land during the pendency of partition proceedings. On the other
hand, CS-437-2025 was instituted by the present petitioner along with four
other plaintiffs against respondent No.1, seeking permanent injunction
against interference in their alleged possession and construction activities
over land measuring 25 Kanal-17.57 Marlas, forming part of a larger holding
measuring 79 Kanal-10 Marlas-2.94 Sarsai.
12. In the aforesaid subsequent suit, respondent No.1 filed a
counter-claim seeking permanent injunction in respect of a specific portion
of land measuring 1 Kanal, comprised in Killa Nos.47//4/1 min (0-10) and
48//2/1 (0-10), claiming exclusive possession thereof and seeking to restrain
the plaintiffs from raising construction or changing its nature without his
consent.
13. It is further relevant to notice that the parties to the respective
proceedings are also not entirely the same. While the earlier suit was
instituted against fifteen defendants, the counter-claim is directed only
against the five plaintiffs in CS-437-2025. Though the said five plaintiffs are
also parties to the earlier suit, the controversy involved in the respective
proceedings has to be examined with reference to the rights asserted and the
reliefs claimed. In the earlier suit, respondent No.1 seeks protection against
construction over the unpartitioned joint land in his capacity as a co-sharer,
whereas in the counter-claim, he asserts exclusive possession over a
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-5883-2026 (O&M) -9-
specifically identified portion of land and seeks protection against
interference therewith. Thus, the nature of possession asserted, the extent of
property involved, the cause of action pleaded in the respective proceedings
and also the relief sought are materially different.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has rightly declined to stay
the proceedings in the counter-claim. No patent illegality, material
irregularity or jurisdictional error is discernible in the impugned order dated
01.05.2026, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
15. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition,
the same is hereby dismissed .
16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARSH BUNGER)
04.11.2026 JUDGE
Ankit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh