Delhi District Court
Sonia vs Kushalaya @ Inder Prabha on 23 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, EAST KKD
COURTS DELHI
Suit No. 331/11
1. Sonia
D/o. Sh. Partimal
R/o. 3/47, Geeta Colony,
Delhi - 110 031 (PLAINTIFF)
Versus
1. Kushalaya @ Inder Prabha
W/o. Late Sh. Pran Nath Tuli
2. Anil Kumar
S/o. Late Sh. Pran Nath Tuli
3. Pramil Kumar
S/o. Late Sh. Pran Nath Tuli
All R/o. F - 80, New Seelampur, Delhi. (DEFENDANTS)
ORDER
1. By way of this order I shall dispose off an application moved by the defendant u/s. 12 CPC.
Vide present application defendant is seeking the dismissal of the Suit No. 331/11 1/7 suit.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of present application are that plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction asserted in the plaint she was born on 17.10.1987 from the wedlock of Smt. Veena @ Bharti and Sh. Parimal, the defendant no.
3. It is stated by the plaintiff that defendants had tortured her mother on account of dowry. The defendant no. 3 got the exparte divorce from the mother of plaintiff. The exparte order was set aside vide order dated 17.07.2007.Thereafter defendant no. 3 stopped appearing in case filed for divorce. The said suit was dismissed in default on 17.07.2007 by the court of Smt. Shailender Kaur, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari. It is stated by the plaintiff that the property number F - 80, New Seelampur, Delhi is ancestral property, which was allotted to Late Sh. Sanjhi Ram by the Government on 21.05.1996. It is further stated by the plaintiff that defendant was also having a shop and DDA Flat at Delhi. The plaintiff stated that she is jointly owner of 1/4th share of suit property, which is undivided.
3. The defendant stated in the instant application that earlier the plaintiff and her mother Smt. Veena had filed a suit for injunction vide Civil Suit number 1085/ 07 titled as Smt. Veena Bharti & Ors. V/s. Prem Nath Tuli. The said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff on 23.11.2010. No permission was granted to the Smt. Veena Bharti to file the another suit. It is further stated by the defendant that Smt. Veena Bharti and Ms. Sonia had also filed one another suit bearing number 459/10 for injunction before this Court without disclosing the factum of pendency of the suit number 1085/07. The defendant further stated that plaintiff in the present suit has filed the present suit without disclosing the factum of other suits and even the present suit is filed during the pendency Suit No. 331/11 2/7 of another suit bearing number 459/10. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Reply of the application is not filed by the plaintiff. The Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued the application straightway. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and also give thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by them. I have also perused the record.
5. The cause of action as shown in the present suit in para seventeen is as under : "That the cause of action for filing the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on 11.09.2007, when the defendants refused to share in the suit properties and threatened of creating uncalled for documents in favour of the family members without any consideration to grab the share of the plaintiff and to create them harassment."
6. I have also perused the para of cause of action of suit bearing number 459/10, which is pending before this Court and listed today itself and which reads as under:
"That the cause of action for filing the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on 11.09.2009, when he refused to share in the suit properties and threatened to transfer and create third party interest and threatened for creating uncalled for documents in favour of other family members without any consideration to grab the share of the plaintiff and to create them harassment and the defendants also threatened to raise unauthorized construction / selling of the suit Suit No. 331/11 3/7 properties and the cause of action still subsisting as the threats are existing"
7. I have also perused the prayer clause of present suit which are as under:
a.) Permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, assignees, attorneys, successors, employees etc. not to illegally possess the property bearing no. F - 80, New Seelampur, Delhi and one DDA Flat and one shop at Delhi;
b.) Permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, assignees, attorneys, successors, employees etc. not to sell out, transfer the property and not the create any third party interest in property bearing no. F - 80, New Seelampur, Delhi and one DDA Flat and one shop at Delhi;
8. I have also perused the prayer clause of suit bearing number 459/10 which are as under:
a.) Permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, assignees, attorneys, successors, employees etc. not to illegally possess the property bearing no. F - 80, New Seelampur, Delhi and one DDA Flat and one shop at Delhi;
b.) Permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, assignees, attorneys, successors, employees etc. not to sell out, transfer the property and not the create any third party interest in property bearing no. F - 80, New Seelampur, Delhi and one DDA Flat and one shop at Delhi;
Suit No. 331/11 4/7
9. From the perusal of para of cause of action of present suit as well as para of cause of action suit bearing number 459/10 pending between plaintiff, his mother and defendants, it reveals that the prayer clause in both the suits are altogether similar except the date of cause of action. In the instant suit the cause of action has been shown as 11.09.2007 while in suit bearing number 459/10 the date of cause of action has been shown as 11.09.2009. There is cutting on the figure of 9 in the year 2009 in the suit bearing number 459/10. It reveals that same has been copied from the earlier suit. Even otherwise, the prayer clause of present suit as well as the suit bearing number 459/10 are ditto. The facts of the present suit as well as suit bearing number 459/10 are altogether similar on which the plaintiff has claimed the relief in the present suit as well as in the suit bearing number 459/10. The plaintiff is also one of the plaintiff in suit bearing number 459/10.
10. After going through the present suit as well as the suit bearing number 459/10, I am of the view that present suit cannot be proceeded further as the same relief has been claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit and in the earlier suit bearing number 459/10. The suit is stayed under Section 10 CPC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court (Jagdish Kumar)
Dated 23.08.2012 JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East)
KKDCOURTS/23.08.2012
Suit No. 331/11 5/7
Suit No. : 331/11
23.08.2012
Present : Counsel for plaintiff with mother of the plaintiff.
Counsel for defendant.
Arguments on application u/s. 12 CPC filed by the defendant heard. Be awaited for order.
(Jagdish Kumar) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East) KKDCOURTS/23.08.2012 At 4.00 p.m. Present : Counsel for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
Vide separate order application is allowed and present suit is stayed u/s. 10 CPC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Jagdish Kumar) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East) KKDCOURTS/23.08.2012.
Suit No. 331/11 6/7
Suit no. : 459/10 Present : Counsel for plaintiff.
Counsel for defendant.
Be put up for reply of application u/o. 7 Rule 11 CPC on 07.11.2012.
(Jagdish Kumar) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East) KKDCOURTS/23.08.2012.
Suit No. 331/11 7/7