GAYA DIN Vs. INCHARGE SESSIONS AND DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs-petitioners have filed a Regular Suit No. 152 of 2000, Gayadeen v. Smt. Phulla Devi and Ors. for permanent injunction with a prayer to restrain Smt. Phulla Devi not to interfere with the disputed property. Subsequently, another regular suit was filed, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 246 of 2000, Smt. Phulla Devi v. Gaya Deen for cancellation of registered Will in question. Accordingly, an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved for staying proceeding of the Regular Suit No. 246 of 2000. The trial court as well as revisional court had declined to stay the proceeding of the subsequent suit on the ground that the cause of action of both the suits are not identical.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments in Ram Narain v. Ram Swarup and Ors. AIR1962 All 108 (V 49 C 30), followed by another judgment in Smt. Meena v. Sri Krishna Kumar and Anr. 2000 (1 )AWC786 , and submits that the controversy in both the suits are directly and substantially same. Accordingly, the proceeding of subsequent suit may be stayed.

(3.) On the other hand, Full Bench's judgment in Ram Charan v. State of U.P. AIR 1979 All 114 and one other case in Mohd. Islam Ahmad Khan v. 1st Additional District Judge 1997 (15) LCD 915 : 1997 (2) AWC 2.227 (NOC) : 1997 (2) AWC 2.227 (NOC), has been relied upon by the respondents' counsel who proceeded to submit that since in both the suits all the issues are not same, hence the trial court as well as revisional court has rightly rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.