Bachna And ORS. v. Dhanvir Singh And ORS.

C.R. No.16 of 2014 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.16 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision.29.01.2016 Bachna son of Daulat Singh and others .......Petitioners Vs.

Dhanvir Singh and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1.

With the consent of both parties, the revision itself is taken up for hearing. The defendants in the suit have sought stay of trial of the suit contending that the very same plaintiff had earlier filed a case claiming a partition of the property as a proprietor against several persons including their own purchasers and the said judgment is subject of second appeal before the High Court and the case must, therefore, be stayed under Section 10 CPC.

2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffrespondent states that he will make no reliance on the decree already obtained by him securing to him the partition and in respect of which there is admittedly an appeal before the High Court. His contention is that his status as proprietor was never in challenge and only question is PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.01.30 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.16 of 2014 (O&M) -2whether he is entitled to partition of the property and secure himself a separate possession. That is not the subject matter in the present suit and what is challenged in the present suit is an alienation by a person who was originally a lessee and according to the plaintiff transaction of sale was made on the basis of some changes effected in the revenue entries. He would not be interested in relying upon a decree already obtained before the District Court and now the subject matter of appeal before the Court.

3.

Taking the submission, I do not think there is necessity for stay of the trial of the suit. The suit will only be decided on the validity of the sale said to have been effected by the defendant which is the subject matter of challenge in the suit. The revision petition is disposed of as requiring no intervention with the order passed already by the Court below but subject to the observations made above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 29, 2016 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.01.30 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document