C. R. No. 6793 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 6793 of 2009 Date of Decision : February 24, 2010 Madan Mohan Pal alias Madan Mohan Kaushal .... Petitioner Vs. Pankaj alias Aman Sharma and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by plaintiff Madan Mohan Pal alias Madan Mohan Kaushal filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 03.09.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, thereby staying under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) the suit filed by the petitioner, on application filed by respondent no.1 Pankaj alias Aman Sharma (defendant no.7 in the suit). Respondent no.1 pleaded that he has already filed Civil Suit No.407 of 28.10.1998 against the petitioner and others claiming relief of possession, permanent injunction etc. relating to suit properties. The petitioner has filed Civil Suit No. 122 of 2000 subsequently, relating to the C. R. No. 6793 of 2009 2 same suit properties. It was alleged in the application that issues involved in both the suits being the same, the instant suit instituted by the petitioner subsequently, is liable to be stayed under Section 10 CPC. The petitioner opposed the application filed under Section 10 CPC by defendant no.7 and pleaded that the grounds of defence, taken by the petitioner as defendant no.3 in the suit instituted by respondent no.1, are not the same, as pleaded by the petitioner in his own suit as plaintiff. It was also pleaded that parties are also different. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. The basic dispute between the parties is regarding Wills dated 04.01.1982, 15.05.1982, 20.11.1988 and 31.03.1995, allegedly executed by Ram Nath Sharma and Maharani. The petitioner alleges the said Wills to be null and void and not to have been executed by the deceased persons. However, respondent no.1 has based his claim on Will dated 15.05.1982 executed by Ram Nath Sharma. The substantial question to be decided in both the suits relates to ownership and possession of the suit properties and the question of execution and validity of the alleged Wills. The learned trial court has, therefore, rightly stayed the suit filed by the petitioner in terms of Section 10 CPC. All conditions stipulated in Section 10 CPC are fully satisfied. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the trial court. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 24, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE