NIRAPADA DAS Vs. PRABHAS CHANDRA MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is at the instance of the defendant no.2/petitioner and is directed against the order no.57 dated 25.11.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Diamond Harbour in Title Suit No.116 of 2000 whereby he has rejected the petition for stay of further proceedings of the said title suit.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the revisional application in short are that the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 filed the title suit for declaration of his right, title and interest in respect of the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint and for permanent injunction against the defendants of the suit. It is the specific case of the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 that he has his own homestead and he had got the land in suit by way of patta under Act No.47 of 1975 and that he is all along in possession of the land in suit. The defendant no.2/petitioner and the other defendants opposed to such claim by way of filing written statements. The defendant no.2/petitioner has claimed his right over the suit property by way of a deed of conveyance dated 21.05.1979 executed by one, Kanailal Bandopadhyay, whose right in respect of the suit land was declared by a decree in the Title Suit No.128 of 1997. Thereafter he filed the Title Suit no.67 of 2001 for eviction and that suit is pending. The defendant no.2/petitioner has prayed for stay of the suit on the ground that the L. R. appeal bearing no.37 of 2004 filed by him and his brother before the collector for determination whether the land had been vested in the State.

(3.) Considering the nature of the dispute involved in the matter and hearing the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides, I find that the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 had filed the Title Suit in the year 2000 that is much earlier than that of the defendant no.2/petitioner filed before the Court. Even the petitioner had filed the appeal before the Collector in the year 2004. On the other hand, the instant suit is pending for further peremptory hearing that is the suit is at the close stage for disposal. The plaintiff/opposite party no.1 filed the suit for declaration and injunction as stated earlier and in that suit if the plaintiff is able to prove his right, title and interest over the land in suit by way of patta or otherwise, the matter of dispute between the parties probably would come to an end. For that reason, there is no justification for stay of the title suit till the disposal of the appeal pending before the Collector. The matter of dispute of the two proceedings cannot be termed at all as same and identical between the two parties of the suit. So, the principle governing for stay of a suit is not applicable here at all. I, therefore, hold that the present revisional application is totally devoid of merits at all and the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has rightly rejected the petition for stay filed by the defendant no.2/petitioner.