AMMANIAMMAL (DECEASED) Vs. P. RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These twin revisions arise from two different orders passed in two different suits dismissing revision petitioner's application for stay of suits under section 10 CPC.

(2.) The pertinent facts which may be relevant for the current purpose may be stated briefly :

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the various orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, have the effect of upsetting her title to the suit properties. Both the suits referred to above have not attained finality since the petitions that she had filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal to set aside the exparte orders passed against her are still pending. While in O.S.No.246 of 2006, the trial Court has appreciated this fact and granted an order of injunction in favour of the revision petitioner, the same appeared to have been missed by the trial Court in O.S.No.135 of 2006. Therefore, if both appellate Courts before which CMA.No.2 of 2007 and A.S.No.87 of 2008 proceed with the conduct of the respective cases, it may lead to a chaotic situation when there can be conflicting Orders or judgements, as the case may be. Hence, it will be in the interest of substantial justice that a situation, which is theoretically possible the petitioner had taken out separate applications under section 10 of Civil Procedure Code in both the appeals.