RAMESH KUMAR SOOD Vs. VEENA SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 4.10.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 4, Shimla in Civil Suit No. 194-1 of 2011/2009 rejecting the application, under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been challenged by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that respondent has filed a suit for possession of building known as Shop No. 8, The Mall, Shimla against the petitioner. The occupation charges and permanent prohibitory injunction have also been prayed in the suit. As per respondent, one Durga Devi alias Durgi Devi was owner of shop No. 8, the Mall Shimla. On her death on 28.1.2008, the respondent has inherited her estate being her adopted daughter. The adoption was made in the year 1961

(3.) THE respondent has filed another suit for recovery against the petitioner being Civil Suit No. 24-1 of 2009/2008 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, Shimla. In that suit also, plea has been taken by respondent that she is adopted daughter of Durga Devi. In that suit the petitioner moved an application, under section 10 of the Code for stay of the suit till the decision of Civil Suit No. 11-1 of 2008 pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla. On 18.2.2002 Civil Judge (Senior Division) has stayed the further proceedings in Civil Suit No. 24-1 of 2009/2008