T.O. THANGAVELU Vs. T.N. RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 7.7.2014 made in I.A.No.787 of 2013 in O.S.No.203 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thiruchengode in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners under Section 10 CPC seeking for stay of the abovesaid suit till the disposal of C.M.A.No.1838 of 2011 pending before this Court arising out of the order made in P.O.P.No.78 of 2008, dismissing the said pauper petition.

(2.) The petitioners are the defendants in the abovesaid suit. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed the said suit in O.S.No.203 of 2012 seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Earlier, the petitioners herein and another, filed pauper petition in P.O.P.No.78 of 2008 on the file of the District Court, Namakkal seeking permission to file the suit, as 'informa pauperis', for the relief of declaration of their title to 'B' schedule property, setting aside the sale deeds, dated 4.9.2006 and 29.9.2008 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of 'B' schedule property.

(3.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.203 of 2012 is the fifth respondent in the above pauper O.P. The said pauper O.P. was rejected on 25.3.2011. Challenging the same, C.M.A.No.1838 of 2011 was filed by the revision petitioners herein and the same is pending before this Court. Therefore, the petitioners seek for stay of the subsequent suit filed by the respondent herein by contending that the issue involved in both the proceedings, namely C.M.A.No.1838 of 2011 and O.S.No.203 of 2012 is one and the same between the same parties. The Court below rejected the said application by holding that on the date of filing the above application, no suit is pending and that the petitioners are trying to drag on the proceedings, especially when the witnesses on the side of the plaintiffs were cross-examined and the matter was posted for examination of the defendant's side witness.