RAMESHWARLAL Vs. SEETA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of the learned civil Judge, Ratangarh dated 22. 9. 89 whereby the learned lower Court has rejected the application filed by the present petitioners under sec. 10 r/w sec. 151 C. P. C. for staying the proceedings in suit No. 31/88 Smt. Taramani Vs. Ramashwarlal etc. till suit bearing No. 32/88 filed by Shri Rameshwar Lal against Shri Tulshi Ram for declaration and injunctions is decided. The suit bearing No. 31/88 filed by Smt. Taramani against Shri Rameshwar Lal etc. has been filed u/s. 6 of the Specific Relief Act where as this suit which has been filed by Shri Rameshwarlal against Tulsi Ram and other is based on title for grant of declaration as also injunction against Shri Tulsi Ram, Sita Ram etc. . The contention of the petitioners in the learned lower court was that parties in both the suits are same, the subject matter in both the suits is also the same and consequently the proceedings in the suit filed u/s. 6 of the Specific Relief Act may be stayed till the decision of the title suit. THIS contention however did not find favour with the learned lower Court and it has rejected the application and consequently Shri Rameshwar Lal and Sushil Kumar who were the plaintiffs in the title suit, have filed this revision petition.

(2.) MR. Gour appearing for the petitioners advanced detailed arguments at the stage of admission and submitted that his contention before the learned lower Court was that parties in both the suits are same and the subject matter of the dispute is also same and if both the suits are allowed to continue then there is a possibility of contradictory decisions being rendered. If both suits are decided then the plaintiff petitioners will be driven to file another suit for possession and therefore, relief of injunction will become redundent and the finding about possession will become res judicata and; therefore, proceedings in Suit No. 31/88 should have been stayed by the learned lower Court. In this respect, MR. Gour draw my attention to a S. B. decision of this Court in Heeralal and another Vs. Hari Ballabh (l) where in it has been held that the decision on the point of possession in a suit u/s. 9 of the old Specific Relief Act, (the corresponding section of which is sec. 6 in the new specific Relief Act) operates as res judicata in the subsequent suit for possessions based oh title to find whether plaintiff came into possession within six months of the filing of the suit. MR. Gour also drew my attention to a decision by the learned Single Judge of the Rangoon High Court in Ma Kyaw and another Vs. Daw Kye U where in the learned Single Judge has held that where one party files a suit for recovery of possession and the opposite party files a counter suit in the same Court for declaration of title against the first party, the proper action for the Court is that, under the inherent powers of the Court, the hearing of the possessory suit should be stayed until the question of title to the land has been decided. Of course this authority helps the contention of MR. Gaur as the learned Single Judge of the Rangoon High Court has observed the such a suit for possession should be stayed under the inherent powers of the Court. It was further submitted by MR. Gour that the property is under attachment and is in the possession of that Commissioner and, therefore, the possession can be delivered to the person who is held to be best entitled its possession by the court and as no harm will be come to any party.