H. RAVISHANKAR S/O. P. HANUMANTHAIAH Vs. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed a suit seeking that he is entitled to effect the katha pertaining to the suit schedule property in pursuance to the decree dated 01.10.2002 passed in O.S. No. 4559/2002. During the pendency of the suit, he filed an application under Section - 10 of the C.P.C., seeking to stay further proceedings of the suit till the disposal of the appeal before the Land Tribunal. The Trial Court vide the impugned order rejected the application. Hence, the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the decree sought for is based on the decree passed in O.S. No. 4559/2002, that is a suit for partition. The property that devolved upon the plaintiff was a tenanted property. However, in a parallel proceeding pertaining to tenancy, on an order of the Tribunal, which was challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 25402/1992, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. Therefore, when the Tribunal passes an order, it would necessarily have to decide with regard to tenancy. In case the tenancy is to be held valid, it is only then the decree passed in O.S. No. 4559/2002 can be executed. If the tenants fail in the plea before the Tribunal, in view of the fact that the decree is based on the tenancy right, necessarily, a decree in O.S.No. 2289/2009 cannot be passed. Therefore, it is just and necessary to allow the application.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 defends the impugned order. He contends that the provisions of Section -10 are not applicable to the case on hand. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences Vs. C. Parameshwara, AIR 2005 SC 242 . He contends that no ingredients of Section -10 has been made out in the present case. Hence, the petition requires to be rejected.

(3.) ON hearing the counsels and on examining the impugned order, I'am of the considered view that the petition requires to be allowed. The effect of the decree to be passed in the suit in question is directly relatable to the findings to be recorded by the Land Tribunal Any findings to be recorded therein would necessarily have a direct bearing on the suit in question. Therefore, to hold that the provisions of Section -10 are not applicable to the case on hand cannot be accepted.