P. MALARASU Vs. NARAYANAN NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would narrate the case of the revision petitioner which could precisely and briefly be set out thus:

(2.) THERE is no knowing of the fact as to how the very plaintiff who filed the earlier suit, and got the decree, and filed the subsequent suit, could seek for stay of the trial. If at all the defendant had made any prayer for staying it under Section 10 of CPC, the matter would have been different. The plaintiff who succeeded in the earlier suit and also filed the subsequent suit, cannot legally seek for staying of the trial under Section 10 of CPC. The Lower Court correctly dismissed the application filed under Section 10 of CPC. The contention is to the effect that pending the said appeal, the defendant had cut and removed the trees in the suit property which constitutes a separate cause of action and for that only the subsequent suit was filed. In such a case, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order of the Lower Court warranting any interference. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. On hearing the pronouncement of the order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would make a request to issue suitable direction to the Lower Appellate Court for speedy disposal of the appeal. I see considerable force in his submission. Accordingly, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.