JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. A suit bearing No.44 of 2016, stood, instituted by defendant No.1/applicant against one Rajwant Singh, plaintiff in Civil Suit No.17 of 2014. The institution, of, the afore civil suit bearing No. 44 of 2016, is, prior to the institution of Civil Suit No. 17 of 2014, and, the litigating parties, in, the earlier suit, are also, engaged in a legal combat, in, the extant suit. A reading, of, the plaint, of, Civil Suit No. 44 of 2016, instituted before the Court, of, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, and, a perusal of the plaint, of, Civil Suit No. 17 of 2014, unfolds qua both the suits containing visibly analogus hence suit property. 2. The distinctivity inter se both the afore suits, stands, comprised in the factum (I) qua Civil Suit No.54 of 2013, standing, instituted before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, by, the applicant/defendant No.1, in, the extant suit, (ii) wherein, he claims relief, of, rendition of a decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, and, the afore claimed relief, stands, anvilled, upon, his acquiring title, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, under a bequest made in his favour, by the deceased testator concerned, and, thereafter, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, as valid, mutation standing attested, in his favour. In the written statement instituted thereto, by one Rajwant Singh, plaintiff in Civil Suit No.17 of 2014, instituted before this Court, the afore propagation reared by the plaintiff therein/defendant No.1/applicant hereat, rather stood denied. Also he claimed, qua his being, in exclusive possession, of, the suit property, hence, noticeably contested, the, validity, of, the bequest made by the deceased testator concerned, vis-a-vis defendant No.1 herein, yet he therein omitted to, anvil, his claim qua the suit property, upon, the fulcrum qua his receiving the suit property, under, a bequest, made prior thereto, on 22.2.2007, averment whereof, he rears hereat, whereunder, she made a bequest both in favour of the plaintiff, and, the applicant/defendant No.1 herein (plaintiff in the earlier suit). However, he reared, a, contention in the earlier suit qua the deceased testator being barred to execute the apt bequest, vis-a-vis, the suit property, given it carrying, the, traits and characteristics of ancestral property.. 3. However, he reared, a, contention in the earlier suit qua the deceased testator being barred to execute the apt bequest, vis-a-vis, the suit property, given it carrying, the, traits and characteristics of ancestral property.. 3. However, the afore rife distinctivity, inter se, the earlier suit, and, the extant suit, (a) conspicuously apart from the plaintiff Rajwant Singh in the extant suit, casting, a challenge, upon, the bequest made, vis-a-vis, the defendant/appellant, and his also depending, upon, a bequest made, on, 22.2.2007, stands comprised in his also espousing, relief(s), for, rendition of a decree, for permanent prohibitory injunction; (b) AND, for rendition of a decree of joint possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers. In respect of the latter relief, the apt averments, for hence bringing the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, are also, embodied therein, and, the requisite ad valorem court fees, upon, the plaint hence stands appended therewith. 4. Prima facie, upon, the afore narrations, the principle enshrined in Section 10 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-, warrant application “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.” (i) with expostulations therein occurring, qua, when the matter in issue in both civil suits, are analogous or are materially, and, substantially, hence, similar, and, the litigants in both the suits are common, thereupon, this Court being enjoined to stay, the, proceedings in the extant suit. If the afore principle, is, stricto sensu, hence hereat applied, thereupon, this Court, would, hence he forestalled to make progresses, upon, the extant civil suit No. 17 of 2014, and, would rather permit the progress, of, the earlier thereto suit bearing No. 54 of 2017, suit whereof, is, pending before the learned Civil Suit (Sr. Division), Kinnaur at Reckong Peo. If the afore principle, is, stricto sensu, hence hereat applied, thereupon, this Court, would, hence he forestalled to make progresses, upon, the extant civil suit No. 17 of 2014, and, would rather permit the progress, of, the earlier thereto suit bearing No. 54 of 2017, suit whereof, is, pending before the learned Civil Suit (Sr. Division), Kinnaur at Reckong Peo. Consequently, this Court concludes, that, even though, the suit khasra numbers in both, the, suits are same, (ii) and, even though the parties in both suits are similar, (iii) besides when an alike challenge, is, made by the plaintiff herein, vis-a-vis, the bequest of the deceased testator, yet with the visible distinctivity, inter se, both when rather rests upon the factum, that, in the earlier suit, only, a simplicitor relief stands espoused by the defendant/applicant herein, for, rendition of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, besides for mandatory injunction, (iv) whereas, in the extant suit, the plaintiff Rajwant Singh, has reared a claim for possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, AND, even if, the afore claim, for, rendition of a decree of possession, was, espousable through a counter claim instituted, by the plaintiff herein, alongwith his written statement, as, instituted to the plaint in the earlier suit, (v) yet when the afore apt counterclaim, was, rather undecreeable, given the counter claim, for, possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, hence not falling within the pecuniary limits, of, jurisdiction, of, the learned trial Court, (vi) thereupon, when this Court holds the pecuniary jurisdiction to maybe accord the afore decree of possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, to, the plaintiff herein, and, when at this stage, it is not befitting to conclude, that, the valuation of the suit, for, thepurpose of jurisdiction, and, for appending therewith, the, apt ad valorem court fees, is correct or incorrect, (vii) thereupon, it is deemed fit, to, decline the relief, claimed by the applicant/defendant No.1, especially for the stay of the proceedings, in, the extant suit. 5 For the foregoing reasons, the instant application is dismissed. 5 For the foregoing reasons, the instant application is dismissed. However, for obviating the rendition of conflicting verdicts, upon, the afore trite issues/subject matter, common, in, both the suits, excepting, the rendition of a decree for possession, in the extant suit, this Court deems it fit, and, proper to order for transfer of Civil Suit No.54 of 2013, titled as Tejwant Singh vs. Rajwant Singh, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, therefrom, to, this Court, and, it be consolidated with the extant suit, and, a joint trial of both the aforesaid suits, be, conducted by this Court. The Registry is directed to call the records of afore Civil Suit No. 54 of 2013, from, the quarter concerned. Both the suits be listed after four weeks.