ALAUDDIN ANSARI Vs. MOHAMMAD JAN MIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the defen-dant is directed against the order dated 15th Feb., 1983 passed in Title Suit No. 23 of 1982 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to stay the further proceedings in the suit Until final disposal of Title Suit No. 90 of 1982 filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sitamarhi.

(2.) The relevant facts are these. The present title suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite party for eviction of the defendant-petitioner. A decree for arrears of rent was also claimed in the suit. This suit, it appears proceeded to the stage of taking evidence. The impugned order shows that the evidence of the plaintiffs has been taken to a great extent. During the pendency of this suit, the petitioner filed a suit as plaintiff against the members of the opposite party in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Sitamarhi. which has been numbered as Title Suit No. 90 of 1982. In this suit a decree for specific performance of contract has been prayed. It appears that there are three revisional survey plot Nos. 1928, 1929 and 1930, which stand recorded in the names of the three brothers, namely, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of opposite party No. 3. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in one of the rooms standing in a portion of the aforesaid plots at the rate of Rs. 85/-: per month. He paid rent up to Match, 1981 and thereafter made default. Hence, Title Suit No. 23 of 1982 was brought against him. The petitioner brought the aforesaid Title Suit No. 90 of 1982 on the allegation that the opposite party separated amongst themselves and as the husband of opposite party No. 3 was ailing, he needed money for his treatment and, therefore, he contracted to sell one katha of land out of his own share in the aforesaid plots at Rs. 15,000/-. According to him, Rs. 10,000/- was paid and the Mahadanama was executed and the balance of the consideration money was agreed to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale-deed. Shortly after the execution of the Mahadanama, the husband of opposite party No. 3 died and, therefore, he sent a notice to the members of the opposite party to execute the sale-deed but as the sale-deed was not executed, he filed Title Suit No. 90 of 1982 against them.

(3.) At the stage when the evidence was going on in Title Suit No. 23 of 1982, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying further proceedings in the suit and trans-ferring the present suit to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sitamarhi, for hearing with Title Suit No. 90 of 1982. The aforesaid petition was rejected by the impugned order and hence the present revision application has been filed.