IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5810 of 2008 Date of decision : January 12, 2010 Gurmail Dass ....Petitioner versus Jagdeep Kaur and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant no. 1 has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 25.8.2008 (Annexure P/4) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala whereby application moved by the petitioner for staying suit filed by respondent no. 1 Jagdeep Kaur, under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( in short, CPC), has been dismissed. Defendant no. 1 alleged in the application that earlier suit filed by petitioner and others under section 14 of the Religious Endowment Act was decided by trial court vide judgment and decree dated 1.12.2001 thereby decreeing the suit and appeal against said judgment and decree is pending in this Court (High Court) and since issue involved in the said suit Civil Revision No. 5810 of 2008 -2- is the same as involved in the instant suit instituted by respondent no. 1, the instant suit is liable to be stayed under section 10 CPC. Plaintiff-respondent no. 1, interalia, pleaded that the plaitniff was not party to the previous suit instituted by petitioner and others and in fact even decree dated 1.12.2001 passed in the previous suit has also been challenged in the instant suit. Learned trial court vide impugned order, Annexure P/4, dismissed the application moved by petitioner under section 10 CPC. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present suit instituted by respondent no. 1 is liable to be stayed under section 10 CPC in view of earlier suit instituted by petitioner and others in which appeal is pending in this Court. The contention cannot be accepted because admittedly plaintiff-respondent no. 1 who has instituted the instant suit was not party to the previous suit instituted by petitioner and others. The plaintiff claims herself to be legal heir of Sucha Singh in whose favour lease deed has been executed which was challenged in the previous suit. The plaintiff is said to be daughter of sister of Sucha Singh. However, in the previous suit the petitioner and others impleaded one Balwinder Singh defendant no. 27 as legal heir of Sucha Singh. However, the fact remains that plaintiff-respondent no. 1 Jagdeep Kaur who has filed the present suit was not party to the previous suit instituted by the petitioner and others. Consequently, provisions of section 10 CPC are not attracted and the Civil Revision No. 5810 of 2008 -3- application moved by the petitioner for staying present suit under section 10 CPC has been rightly dismissed. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court warranting interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) January 12, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'