JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 04-08- 2022 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 10 of the CPC for staying of further proceeding of Case No.74/2021 was rejected. 2. The petitioner herein who is maternal uncle of the minor has filed a suit No.18/2021 before the Second Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (in short ‘the Act, 1890’). The minor is staying with the petitioner herein. Notices were issued to the non-applicants/defendants and one of the defendants is Yshodhara Singh who is aunt of the minor marked her appearance in the case. 3. Thereafter, respondent No.1 Yashodhara Singh filed another suit under Section 7 of the Act, 1890 before the learned Family Court, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and the present petitioner has been arrayed as defendant in that case. After issuance of notice to the petitioner, he appeared and moved an application under Section 10 of the CPC for stay of the proceeding on the ground that similar proceeding between the same parties for same cause of action and for same relief is pending before the learned District Court, Rajnandgaon. The learned Family Court, Raipur rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the CPC assigning reasons that the petitioner has filed civil suit to appoint him as guardian of the minor, whereas Yashodhara Singh has filed suit to appoint her as guardian of person and property of minor, thus, the subject matter of both the suits is different. 4. Learned counsel for respondent would submit that the case which was filed before the Second Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon under Section 7 of ‘the Act, 1890 has been dismissed on 01-10-2022 while allowing the application moved by the respondent under Section 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC on the ground that the case would lie before the competent Family Court having proper jurisdiction. 5. 5. Learned counsel for respondents would place reliance upon the judgment of Ramdutt Ramkissen Dass vs. E.D.Sassoon and Co., AIR 1929 PC 103 where while considering Section 4 of Limitation Act it is observed that where a suit has been instituted in a court which is found to have no jurisdiction and it is found necessary to raise a second suit in a court of proper jurisdiction, the second suit cannot be regarded as a continuation of the first, even though the subject matter and the parties to the suits were identical. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that an application was moved by the petitioner who is maternal uncle of the minor before the Second Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon under Section 7 of the Act, 1890. The respondent No.1 was a party to that litigation and after notice she appeared before the Court. Thereafter, she filed another suit under Section 7 of the Act, 1890 before the learned Family Court, Raipur claiming same relief between the same parties. As earlier suit was filed by the petitioner before the Second Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon and subsequently, for the same cause of action seeking same relief, second case was filed by respondent No.1 before the learned Family Court, Raipur, therefore, interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner, wherein Case No.74/2021 pending before the Family Court Raipur was stayed vide order dated 20-09-2022. Consequently, the application under Section 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was moved by the respondents No.1 and 5 to 7 before the Second Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon on the ground of jurisdiction and the same was allowed vide order dated 01-10-2022 and the application moved by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 8. In the case of Ramdutt Ramkissen Dass vs. E.D.Sassoon and Co. (supra) the Privy Council has held that where a suit has been instituted in a court which is found to have no jurisdiction and it is found necessary to raise a second suit in a court of proper jurisdiction, the second suit cannot be regarded as a continuation of the first, even though the subject matter and the parties to the suits were identical. In the present case, parties are identical, but the application which was moved by the petitioner before the Second Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon has been dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction, therefore, the second application which was moved by respondent No.1 before the Family Court, Raipur cannot be held barred by Section 10 of the CPC and its proceeding cannot be stayed as no suit is pending at present before the Second Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and law laid down by the Privy Council, in my opinion the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The interim order granted earlier is also vacated. No cost(s).