CHANDRA BHAN Vs. RAMANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's revision directed against an order of the District Judge, Bharatpur, dated 14th January, 1975, allowing the plaintiff's implication under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for consolidation of the proceedings in Civil Suit No. 11 of the 1972 and Civil Suit No. 6 of 1963 while disallowing his application under Section 10 of the Code for staying the proceedings in Civil Suit No. 6 of 1973.

(2.) THE material facts are these. The earlier suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 11 of 1972 was filed on 18 -9 -1972, by the defendant Chandrabhan who was a tenant of a house item Smt. Ramdei seeking the relief of declaration that the acceptance of the bid of Rs. 10,250/ - in favour of the plaintiff Ramanlal was null and void and that he being the tenant of the suit house from Smt. Ramdei was entitled to remain in its possession and for a perpetual injunction against the defendant in that suit including the plaintiff Ramanlal The present suit, that is, Civil Suit No. 6 of 1973 was brought by plaintiff Raman Lal on 19 -2 -1973 It was a suit for possession based en title and mesne profits. He alleged that he had acquired an indefeasible title to the suit house by virtue of the auction sale and its confirmation in his favour It appears that the defendant Chandrabhan bad also offered a bid of Rs. 10,221/ - but his bid being lower, the sale was knocked down in favour of the plaintiff Ramanlal who offered a higher bid of Re. 10,250/. The defendant Chandra Bhan being to possession of the suit house fore stalled the plaintiff by filing Civil Suit No. 6 of 1973.

(3.) IN support of the revision, learned Counsel for the petitioner has advanced a two -fold contention, namely, (i) the learned District Judge has failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him by law in not disposing of the application filed by the defendant Chandrabhan under Section 10 for staying of the proceedings' in Civil Suit No. 6 of 1973, and (ii) the requirements of Section 10 of the Code being fulfilled, the learned District Judge had no other option but to ray the proceedings in that suit. I am afraid, the contentions cannot be accepted. The learned District Judge has dealt with both the application and in his well considered order be observes that justice of the case demands that the proceedings in the two suits should be consolidated rather than that of Civil Suit No 6 of 1973 be stayed. He has expressly stated so in para 4 of the older observing 'I feel that the consolidation will serve the interests of justice better than the stay of either under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.