RAMESHWAR LAL Vs. LALIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case reminds me the saying, "Fools construct and wise live, wiser are those who don't pay rent and wisest are those who claim the demised premises as their own".

(2.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Munsiff, Kuchaman City dated May 1, 1992 by which he has rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner moved under Section 10, C.P.C. for stay of the ejectment suit filed against him by the plaintiff-non-petitioner on the ground that his previously instituted application for obtaining probate of the Will left by the deceased landlord in his (defendant-petitioner tenant) favour is pending.

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner Rameshwar Lal that the decision of the probate proceedings will have impact upon the suit filed by the non-petitioner Lalit Kumar for ejectment of the petitioner Rameshwar Lal and as such the trial Court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the application. He further contends that if the provisions of Section 10, C.P.C. are not applicable the trial Court should have allowed the application under Section 151, C.P.C. He relies upon P.V. Shetty v. B.S. Giridhar, AIR 1982 S.C. 83, Krishnan v. Krishnamurthi, AIR 1982 Madras 101, Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. Swadeshi Sugar Supply (Pvt.) Ltd., AIR 1983 Calcutta 199 and Heeralal v. Kanhaiyalal, AIR 1953 Rajasthan 84.