PARMAL AND OTHER Vs. MST. HAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff - Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the trial Court, dated 7th, February, 1979 by virtue of which the proceedings in the suit have been stayed as contemplated under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE Defendant Respondent filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the stay of the proceedings in the suit on the allegations that the Defendant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she was the heir of Sunder Singh and that there was no adoption of Parmal Singh the present Plaintiff. It was also alleged that there was no valid will executed in his favour and the Defendant is the sole owner of the property in dispute. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the Defendant and an appeal was filed by the Plaintiff which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, on 17th April, 1978. Now Regular Second Appeal No. 871 of 1978, against the said judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, filed by the Defendant Respondent is, pending for final hearing in this Court. It was further alleged that the present suit is based on the same allegations, in the respect of which an appeal is pending in the High Court, and in that appeal the parties and the subject matter as well as the issues to be tried are the same. Consequently. It was prayed that the proceedings in the present suit be stayed till the matter is finally decided by the High Court. In reply to this application, the Plaintiff Petitioner averred that the application is misconceived and mala fide and the High Court is the only proper forum which could stay the present suit.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned order. His main grievance is that these are the delaying tactics only adopted by the Defendant, which should not be allowed by this Court. I find no force in this argument. A valid order passed under Section 10 of the Code of Procedure, staying the proceedings in the subsequent suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, does not give rise to failure of justice nor irreparable injury. On the other hand, it is calculated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and the main point in issue being common m both the suits, the trial Court has rightly stayed the proceedings in the present suit. Thus, I do not find any force in this petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the Petitioner may move a separate application for the early decision of Regular Second Appeal No. 871 of 1978, if so advised.