ARIFULLAH SAHIB Vs. ABDUL KHADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in CRP. 3758/2008: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Fair and Decretal Order dated 17. 6. 2008 made in I. A. No. 64 of 2006 in R. C. O. P. No. 5 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Chidambaram.)These two civil revision petitions have been filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/respondent as against the order dated 17. 06. 2008 in I. A. Nos. 63 and 64 of 2006 passed by the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Chidamparam in dismissing the applications filed under Section 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) IN I. A. Nos. 63 and 64 of 2006 filed by the revision petitioner/respondent, it is inter alia mentioned that the respondent/petitioner and his wife Habibunnissa entered into an agreement to sell the suit property and that the respondent has agreed to sell and Habibunnisa agreed to purchase the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 9,50,000/- and that a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- has been received by the respondent from her and that the said Habibunnisa has been put in possession of the suit property even as early as on 26. 07. 1997 and from that onwards, she is in possession of the property etc. and further the said Habibunnisa has filed a suit O. S. No. 59 of 2001 for specific performance before the Sub Court, Chidambaram and the same has been transferred to the Additional Sub Court, Pondicherry as O. S. No. 130 of 2003 and that the said suit has been decreed by the trial Court and further A. S. No. 1158 of 2004 has been preferred by Habibunnisa before the Hon'ble High Court and without a final decision by the Hon'ble High Court in the appeal, the main RCOP petitions cannot be legally proceeded with and therefore, pray for setting the main R. C. O. P. No. 2/2005 and R. C. O. P. No. 5/2005 till a final decision is taken in appeal in A. S. No. 1158 of 2004 by this Court.

(3.) THE respondent/petitioner has filed a counter among other things mentioning that the filing of A. S. No. 1158 of 2004 has nothing to do with the present RCOP petitions and the ambit of these two matters is totally different and that Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code enjoins that the same will apply to the same parties to the earlier suit etc.