In the case of Ashok Lal Chopra v. Mrs. Kiran Kapoor, The complainant filed a civil suit in the Delhi High Court asking for the division of Dalhousie properties and claiming shared ownership of the late Col. P.D. Chopra’s estate. In Dalhousie Court, the plaintiff also brought a second lawsuit seeking a declaration of lawful succession and lessees in ownership. The defendant asserted that the Delhi High Court matter is directly and substantially in issue by filing a concurrent jurisdiction action in the Dalhousie Court pursuant to Section 10 of the CPC. The Dalhousie Court, however, rejected the motion and declined to halt the plaintiff’s lawsuit.
whether the earlier lawsuit’s ultimate result would be considered binding precedent in the future lawsuit.
Analysis of Judgement
A Single Judge Bench of the Himachal Pradesh high court led by Sandeep Sharma upheld the Dalhousie Civil Court Order because it did not meet the requirements outlined in Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code in response to an appeal challenging the order based on the application of Section 10 of the CPC. The court reaffirmed that the whole subject matter in both cases must be similar to draw the case of concurrent court jurisdiction under Section 10 of CPC
The court also noted that Section 10 of CPC was put in place to avoid having two courts try the same case concurrently and to prevent recording contradictory judgements on grounds that were directly and materially at issue in an earlier lawsuit. The Delhi High Court case and the Dalhousie case were distinguished by the court, with the former involving a property partition case and the latter including a P.C. Chopra will and a lease deed. Therefore, the Hon’ble Justice dismissed the petition and affirmed the Dalhousie Civil Court ruling while stating that it cannot be deduced from reading complaints filed in separate courts side by side that the concerns in both cases are the same and same.
CASE NAME – Ashok Lal Chopra v. Mrs. Kiran Kapoor, CMPMO No. 418 of 2020.