SATHEESAN Vs. CHELLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O. S. 47/94 on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Paravur have preferred this revision against the order dated 19th March, 1997 by which further proceeding of the suit has been stayed under S.10 of the Code of. Civil Procedure by reason of pendency of appeal against the decree and judgment in O. S. 132/91. Learned Munsiff held that the property involved in this suit which was filed later is the same as in O. S. 132/91. The plaintiffs in O. S. 132/91 were the vendors of the plaintiffs herein. As per the judgment and decree in O. S. 132/91, the title and possession in respect of the property was found in favour of the plaintiffs therein. The plaintiffs herein have purchased the property subsequent to Ext. B13 judgment, got themselves impleaded in the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree in O. S. 132/91. Since there is identity of property involved in both the suits and the parties herein are vendees/legal representatives of the parties in O. S. 132/91, the matter in the present suit being directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit and as parties in this suit are claiming title under the same parties in the earlier suit, the trial of this suit should therefore be stayed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that S.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not attracted in this case. The evidence on record indicates that the issues involved in this suit and in O. S. 132/91 are totally different. The observation of the Munsiff that the finding of the decision in O. S. 132/91 is binding on the parties herein is erroneous. The plaintiffs in O. S. 132/92 have no interest over the property in the suit.

(3.) In M. S. Balasubramanyan v. Sakthivel ( 1990 (2) KLJ 853 ) the conditions for the application of S.10 have been laid down as follows: