BALDEV SINGH Vs. KAPUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AJIT Singh father of the plaintiffs, during his life time, gave some property to his daughters Bhupinder Kaur and Pritam Raj Kaur by way of Tabliknama. Ajit Singh died on March 17,1980. After the death of their father, Bhupinder Kaur and Pritam Raj Kaur sold the property which was the subject matter of Tabliknamas, in favour of the petitioner and his son. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the land was given by their father Ajit Singh to Bhupinder Kaur and Pritam Raj Kaur as life, estate and it was to revert back to them after the death of their father. The suit was decreed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 2. 6. 1983. Appeal there against was dismissed by the first appellate court on 11. 8. 1988. Two Regular Second Appeals against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court are pending disposal in this court. RSA 2653 of 1988 has been filed by Pritam Raj Kaur and RSA 2656 of 1988 has been filed by the petitioner and his son.

(2.) SOME time later, Bhupinder Kaur died. On her death, the sons of Ajit Singh filed a suit for possession in the year 1988. That suit is also pending disposal. Petitioner is one of the defendants in that suit. Defendant Baldev Singh filed written statement in that suit and took a preliminary objection therein that the suit is liable to be stayed in view of the second appeals pending in this Court. The trial court framed an issue in that being issue No. 3 which reads thus: "whether the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 C. P. C. ? OPD " This issue was treated as preliminary issue and the trial court by order dated 19. 8. 1991 came to the conclusion that the suit is not liable to be stayed. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition at the instance of defendant No. 1.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to examine as to whether the proceedings are liable to be stayed or not either under the provisions of Section 10 or 151 of the Code. The interest of justice would be better served by allowing the proceedings in the suit to go on and concluded but at the same time protecting the rights of the petitioner-vendee. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this petition with the observations that the proceedings in the suit shall go on but the petitioner shall not be dispossessed even if a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiffs, till such time the above-said Regular Second Appeals are disposed of by this Court. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial court on 24. 7. 1998 for further proceedings. The trial court shall now dispose of the suit in accordance with law. No costs.