(1.) THESE two revision applications arise out of an order Dated 30 -10 -1978 passed by the Munsiff, Sub Registrar, Jammu rejecting the application of the plaintiffs -petitioners seeking stay of the two suits in terms of Section 10/151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) ORIGINALLY the two suits were pending in the court of the City Judge, Jammu, where applications were made on 9 -4 -1977 under Section 10/151 C. P. C. averring therein that as a common issue relating to ownership of the suit property was involved in the suits, one pending before the High Court entitled M/s Kamal Industries Versus Rugh Nath and ors and the other entitled Balak Ram Versus Rugh Nath, and Chaman Lal Versus Bal Mukund pending in the court of the City Judge, Jammu, therefore the latter suits be stayed. These two suits pending in the court of the City Judge were later on transferred to the court of the Munsiff Sub Registrar, Jammu who after protracted hearing declined to stay the suits and rejected the applications. Aggrieved by these orders the plaintiff have come up in revision before this court. This order will dispose of the two revisions petitions.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Custodian Evacuee Property is a party in both the suits pending before the High Court and before the trial court of the Sub Registrar. One of the major issues arising in the two suits is as to whether the super structure standing in the Ehata Sharif Trunk Factory belongs to the Custodian or to the plaintiffs -petitioners. Both these issues are pending for consideration of the two courts. The controversy, therefore, in the two suits being substantially the same, it was appropriate on the part of the Sub Registrar to have stayed the suits pending the disposal of the suit in the High Court, This would have been in accordance with the principle under -lying Section 10 C. P. C. read with Section 151 C.P.C.