ACHHAR SINGH Vs. SUNIL GUPTA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No.2, herein, claiming that certain property had been leased out to him by the petitioner, has filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the petitioner from causing any obstruction in the construction of a building on the property leased out/agreed to be leased out. An application, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, had also been moved by respondent No.2, in the said suit. Order for maintenance of status quo has been passed on the application of respondent No.2.

(2.) Thereafter, petitioner also filed a suit, for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining respondent No.2 from interfering in the property, which, according to respondent No.2 has been leased out/agreed to be leased out to him, claiming that neither there is any agreement for leasing out the property nor has the property been leased out and respondent No.2 be restrained from raising any construction on the property, which the petitioner claims to be owned and possessed by him. Petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction. Order of status quo was passed on that application also. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed an application, under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for staying the trial of the suit, instituted by the petitioner. That application has been allowed and according to the petitioner, on account of the allowing of that application, order of status quo, which was passed in his favour on his application, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has become infructuous. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition, challenging the order passed by the trial Court for staying the trial of the suit instituted by him.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the questions involved in both the suits are the same. The main question involved, in both the suits, is whether the petitioner has leased out/agreed to lease out the property, in question, in favour of respondent No.2. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order of the trial Court, staying the trial of the subsequent suit, instituted by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. Petitioner may, if he feels aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, on the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prefer an appeal to the District Judge.