MEENA BHANDARI Vs. KRISHNA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 2.11.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge VIth Court. Saharanpur in Misc. Case No. 21 of 1995 has since been challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) The impugned order was passed on an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for stay of Misc. Case No. 21 of 1995 in view of pendency of O.S. No. 333 of 1S94. The said application under Section 10 is Annexure-5 to the said application in support of the revision petition. The prayer made in the said application was to the extent that further proceedings of Misc. Case No. 21 of 1995 should be stayed till the disposal of O.S. No. 333 of 1994 pending before the learned Civil Judge, Saharanpur.

(3.) The present proceeding is a proceeding for probate of a will filed before the learned District Judge since been transferred to learned Additional District Judge. In the said order dated 2.11.1999 the learned Additional District Judge had pointed out that issues involved in O.S. No. 333 of 1994 are not identical with those of Misc. Case No. 21 of 1995. The O.S. No. 333 of 1994 was for injunction between the parties, whereas the Case No. 21 of 1995 is for grant of probate of a will. Thus, the issues involved in two proceedings are altogether different apart from the fact that issue involved in the probate proceedings cannot be adjudicated upon in Suit No. 333 of 1994 by the learned Civil Judge, who had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such question. On these grounds, he had given the finding that the question does not come within the purview of Section 10 of C.P.C.