Chena Ram vs Gordhan and Others

Vineet Kothari, J.—By the impugned order dt. 04.06.2013 (Annex. 5), the learned Additional District Collector, Nohar, in revision petition filed by the respondent - Gordhan S/o. Jeeram, rejected the application filed by the present petitioner - Chena Ram S/o. Jeeram, under Sec. 10 of C.P.C., for staying the proceedings in respect of cancellation of ''Patta''. Mr. G.R. Bhari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the second appeal being SBCSA No. 406/2011- Chena Ram vs. LR''s of Gangabishan & Ors., is pending in this Court arising out of suit filed by Gangabishan, from whom the respondent - Gordhan S/o. Jeeram had purchased the suit property, therefore, the said proceedings in revision petition deserves to be stayed on the anvil of Section 10 of C.P.C.

The learned Court below has stated in the impugned order dt. 04.06.2013 that since the revision-petitioner, Gordhan, was not impleaded as party in the appeal filed by the petitioner, Chena Ram, therefore, in the revision petition, the proceedings could not be stayed under Sec. 10 of C.P.C. in view of pendency of second appeal before this Court, viz. SBCSA No. 406/2011-Chena Ram vs. LR''s of Gangabishan & Ors.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the interlocutory order passed by the learned Additional District Collector, Nohar, dt. 04.06.2013 does not require any interference by this Court since admittedly the parties of above two litigations were not common. The revision-petitioner, Gordhan (respondent herein) has admittedly not been impleaded by the petitioner as a respondent in the second appeal, therefore, the learned revenue Court below was justified in not entertaining the application under Sec. 10 of C.P.C. and same has rightly been rejected by the impugned order. The respective rights of the parties determined in the civil second appeal will binding only on those who are party before the Court and not on those who are not party in the present revision petition pending before the Additional District Collector. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be said to be bad in law and the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.