Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amarchand & Ors vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors on 24 September, 2012
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11533/2009 (Amarchand & Ors Vs. Rakesh Kumar & ors) Date of Order :: 24.09.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.G. Ojha, for the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the order impugned dated 21.04.09 passed by trial court and further with the prayer that petitioner's application filed under Section 10 CPC be allowed and the proceedings of Civil Suit No. 17/08 pending before the court of Additional District Judge NO.1, Bikaner may be stayed till decision of the suit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question is the same which is subject matter of revenue suit pending in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Bikaner in Revenue Suit No. 349/07 filed by Asu Ram under Section 188 of Tenancy Act and another suit filed by Surendra Kumar defendant against Asu Ram, Jeethu Ram and Bheenja Ram under Section 112 of Tenancy Act in the court of S.D.M North, Bikaner, therefore, till disposal of those suit, the proceedings in the instant civil suit pending in the court of Addl. District Judge No.1, Bikaner may be stayed. 2
The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that before decision of the above revenue suits, the suit filed by the plaintiff respondents is required to be stayed because in the revenue suit, first right of Jeethu Ram and Bheenja Ram are required to be determined, thereafter, the suit pending before the Addl. District Judge Bikaner can be decided.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned. The Addl. District Judge Bikaner while proceeding under Section 10 of CPC vide impugned order dated 21.04.09 considered the fact of pending of two revenue suits and prayer made in the revenue suits and the instant suit and found that relief prayed for are altogether different so also the plaintiffs are not party in those revenue suits.
As per finding this suit has been filed for cancellation of sale deed and in revenue suits, no such prayer is made due to lack of jurisdiction. The trial court while following the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Devi Vs. Bhanwar lal reported in 1998(1) WLC (Raj.) 633, rejected the application filed by petitioner defendants. In my opinion, under Section 10 of C.P.C, the suit which is filed for cancellation of sale deed cannot be stayed merely on the ground that revenue suits are pending for the same property in question. Herein this case, jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed is left with the District Judge only whereas no jurisdiction is left with the Revenue court to adjudicate the controversy with regard to validity of sale deed, therefore, the suit of plaintiff respondents cannot be stayed merely on the ground that revenue suit is pending with regard to 3 determination of right of other parties.
For aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order dated 21.04.09 as the said order is perfectly in consonace with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J.
Bjsh