) IN I ‘IGH C’:JRT CF WtTTDKA AT BArAcRs O £T 00 0 RL,liB B C’E INk NJrtBo M2,JT2IE tJ%DtA\ C Ti It’IIDN TITI ‘i. ___ Sm ,$Ia ant3la Bharathi, W/o,Sett A macha d M,W kij !re5 aboit 49 yei:s, C tr t “a i 3rJ Floor, B Block, O?C MC Hs: t-lHaL Mmore, adras 6J C5 ., B S • K sIa v’ • ,iar3r ohia /o 3te 000 rd a, zo’ boN r’ C I 0 OICCNT C/’°oc Br I - 69 2 .ie 2. Sri.Prakash, S/o.Late Gobindara, Aged about 47 years, R/o.No. 68 Upstairs.. 3rd Block, S.C.Road, Bangalote e 60 009. 3. Sri.P.I(.f4anohar]a]. Ahuja, S/o.zate Gobindara, Aged about 52 years, R/O.NO.104e1.3, Queens Apartments. Queens Corner, Dr.Athedkar Road, Bangalore e 660 001. .. • RESPONDENTS (By Sri.M.G.Sathyanarayana Murthy, Adv. for C/R-3) Civil Revision Petition is filed t7/s.115 of CPC against the order dated 12a11a1997 passed in 0.2 No.736/1994 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. I, —: 3 : This Civil Revision Petition coming on for admission this day, the.. court made the. following: ORDER This revision is directed against an order of the trial court rejecting I,AlX filed by the netitioner under S 0 ction 10 CPC requestinc the trial Court to stay further proceedings in niiscellaneous case 803/95 till disposal of o,S,5517/1993, 2, Mis,803/95 is filed for vacation of the probate issued by the con:petent court. 0,3,5517/93 is filed for possessi.on of the particular portion of the property involved in the subseque.nt iartition suit in 0,3.736 of 1994, The comprehensive su..it is now pending in latest n,3735/94 between the parties, The arties have raised all the contentions that were involved in Misc,803/95 and 0,3,5517 of 1993, The trial court, havinc recard to these facts, has observed that the plaintiffs in the suit 3 —: 4 :— o,s,736/94 were to succeed naturally the other suit ha5 to be.,disrnissed and if the suits are clubbed and consolidated to ether, there is no need stay the earlier suit 0,3,5517/93 and that the star of further proceedings in Miscell aneous C 5 se will not serve any ourpose, it is in this background that the trial court has rejected the application though the trial court has allowed the application IA 7 and 8 filed for different reliefs, After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, I find no material irregularity in the order passed which require to be considered in the revision, Therefore, revision is dismissed, sc* JUICE, R, By : Copy Lrv Assistant Registrar High Court of Kamks 4 t[Banga1oreeeo (‘01 vns,