VRINDA Vs. INDIRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner in this C.R.P. is the second defendant in O.S. 811 of 1993 and petitioner in IA 3082 of 1993. She filed a petition under S.10 of the CPC for staying all further proceedings in the said suit till the disposal of O.S. 106 of 1993 instituted by her. By the impugned order the learned Munsiff did not allow the prayer for stay; but allowed consolidation of the two suits. The said order is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) It is an admitted case that the subject matter in both the suits is the same. Defendants in O.S. 106 of 1993 are the plaintiffs in O.S. 811 of 1993. In that the plaintiff in O.S. 106 of 1993 and her husband are the defendants. Thus the parties in both the suits are substantially the same particularly when according to the petitioner, the 2nd defendant has no independent claim and that he is looking after the property as her husband. Both the suits are for a decree of permanent injunction. The earlier instituted suit is O.S. 106 of 1993. As noticed, the petition filed by the second defendant in O.S. 811 of 1993 was to stay further proceedings in the said suit till the disposal of the earlier instituted suit O.S. 106 of 1993.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that it is a case where all the ingredients of S.10 of the CPC are satisfied and therefore the petition ought to have been allowed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petition itself is not maintainable, the conditions under S.10 CPC is not satisfied and he alternatively contended that the prayer in the petition is such that the same cannot be entertained under S.10 CPC. The prayer is to stay all further proceedings in the said suit whereas under S.10 CPC only the trial of the suit can be stayed.