BUKKA SUVARNA Vs. AKKANI POOJARTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged in this revision petition the order dated 6th December, 2000 on LA. No. 10 filed under Sections 9, 10, 94 (e) and 151 of the CPC read with Sections 77-A, 132 and 133 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act, 1961 seeking to stay the further proceedings in original suit in O. S. No. 450 of 1997 pending on the file of the learned II additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First class, Udupi. The said application has been allowed and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this revision petition before this court.

(2.) THE plaintiff has filed the original suit in O. S. No. 450 of 1997 against the respondents herein for possession of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is a building consisting of shop situated in S. No. 152/9 of Udyavara Village, Udupi Taluk. The defendants have filed the written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. The relevant portion of the written statement, which is relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties, reads as hereunder:

(3.) IT is thereafter the above application in LA. No. 10 was filed by the defendants contending that Akkani Poojarthi, the first defendant has filed an application in Form 7-A before the Deputy Commissioner, udupi, for being registered as an occupant in respect of the plaint survey umber, where the plaint premises is situated and also stated that the subject-matter of the dispute for adjudication before the Deputy commissioner, Udupi District and in the above suit is common and the party to the proceedings also one and the same and therefore all further proceedings in the suit has to be stayed pending disposal of the application in Form 7-A before the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi. The plaintiff opposed the said application by filing a detailed statement of objections. The learned Trial Judge after considering the rival contentions and also after considering the several judgments relied on by both the parties has held that though Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is not applicable to the facts of the case, Section 10 of the CPC is applicable and therefore he has stayed all further proceedings in the suit pending disposal of the tenancy matter pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition.