In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5727 of 2009 Date of Decision:October 06, 2009 Karnail Singh and another ---Petitioners versus Dhoom Singh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Kunal Chhoker,Advocate, for Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioners *** SABINA, J. Dhoom Singh Rana-plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.9.2007. Notice of the suit was issued to the petitioners-defendants. During the course of pendency of the suit, petitioners moved an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the proceedings of the suit on the ground that they had already filed a suit seeking a declaration that the agreement in question was null and void and be treated as security in lieu of loan taken by the petitioners from the respondent-plaintiff. Vide the impugned order, the said application was dismissed. Hence the present revision petition. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the Civil Revision No. 5727 of 2009 -2- opinion that the present petition is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff-Dhoom Singh Rana had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell, in question, whereas the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration that the agreement to sell in question, was null and void and be treated as security in lieu of loan taken by them. Although, parties to both the suits are same but nature of the suit as well as relief claimed by the parties in the two suits are different. In these circumstances, learned trial court had rightly held that the application was liable to be dismissed as they did not fulfill the requirement of Section 10 of the CPC. The impugned order does not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 06, 2009 PARAMJIT