Civil Revision No. 3453 of 2008. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3453 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 27th July, 2009. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Petitioner through Mr. A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aashish Chopra, Advocate. Versus Khushal Singh Respondents through Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. This Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed by the defendant against the order dated 7.2.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Amritsar whereby his application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been dismissed. [2]. The respondent – plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 12.12.1988 in respect of half share in House No. 1481 to 1483 [Old] and 154/111-2min Khana Shumari total measuring 100 square yards situated at Katra Jalianwala, Amritsar. [3]. The petitioner – defendant moved an application under Section 10 CPC to stay the proceedings in the aforementioned suit, Civil Revision No. 3453 of 2008. ::-2-:: inter-alia, on the ground that a civil suit for declaration titled as Shashi Gupta & Ors. V Neelam filed by sisters of the petitioner – defendant, namely, the legal heirs of deceased Vidya Sagar claiming themselves to be joint owners in possession of the suit property has been filed and is pending before Additional District Judge, Amritsar. It was urged that if that civil suit is decided in favour of legal heirs of deceased Vidya Sagar, in that event the agreement to sell dated 12.12.1988 relied upon by the present respondent – plaintiff would become inconsequential as the present petitioner – defendant being not the absolute owner to the extent of half share in the subject property would be rendered incompetent to honour the agreement to sell dated 12.1.2008. [4]. The trial Court has dismissed the application after observing that the issues involved in the two suits are not directly or substantially identical. [5]. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that since the principal issue in both the civil suits pertains to ownership rights qua the property in dispute and unless the petitioner – defendant acquires a clear title qua 50% share, the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent – plaintiff is liable to be stayed. He has placed reliance upon three decisions of this Court reported as [i] M/s Jagan Nath Jagdish Lal v M/s Piara Mal Gobind Ram Sachdev, 1979 PLJ, 231; [ii] Manna v Dalel, AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana, 39 and [iii] M/s Sehgal Knitwears v M/s Shreshth International & Anr., 2001[1] PLJ, 594. [6]. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some Civil Revision No. 3453 of 2008. ::-3-:: length and on perusal of the impugned order as well as the additional documents placed on record, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. In a suit for specific performance, the respondent – plaintiff, if at all succeeds, would step into the shoes of the petitioner. It is obvious that whatever title/share the petitioner – defendant is found to have in the suit property, shall be passed on to the respondent – plaintiff in furtherance to the agreement to sell dated 12.12.1988. In the other civil suit referred to by the petitioner – defendant, the issue involved is as to whether the property in dispute is ancestral and inherited by all the legal heirs of deceased Vidya Sagar? On the other hand, the issue involved in the suit filed by the respondent – plaintiff is as to whether there exists a valid agreement to sell dated 12.12.1988 and/or payment of earnest money of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner – defendant. There is no similarity in the issues involved in both the suits. The ratio-decidendi of the afore-cited decisions also does not apply to the facts of the present case. [7]. Dismissed. July 27, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE