L BAL KRISHNA Vs. RAM KISHUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions that we have to decide in this petition for revision are: (1) whether a revision is entertainable and (2) whether the order of the Court below was right:

(2.) The facts of the case, briefly, are these: The plaintiffs represent two or three brothers and the respondents represent the third brother, Lal Man. A partition suit was instituted by Lal Man, in his lifetime, and it is now pending for final decision before His Majesty in Council. The question in that case is whether Lal Man had separated or had an interest still left in the family property, on the ground that he was still joint with his brothers and their descendants. The applicants who were the plaintiffs in the Court below, filed a second suit, being No. 32 of 1925, for recovery of certain moneys due from debtors, as a delay in recovery of the debts would entail a loss of the property. Among the defendants were not only the debtors but also the representatives of Lal Man the respondents. The debtors paid the money into Court and the sole dispute in the suit remained between the very parties who are parties to the litigation now before the Privy Council. The learned Subordinate Judge, before whom the suit (No. 32 of 1925) came, directed that the trial of the second suit should be stayed till the final decision of the former suit.

(3.) While the trial was stayed, the plaintiffs thought that they, being the owners of more than one-half share of the money in deposit, should be allowed to take away the amount deposited in Court on furnishing security. They made a request to the Court below accordingly, and that request was granted. Thereupon the present respondents came up in revision to this Court (No. 47 of 1927).